Actually, he was making the distinction between civil and criminal offenses. Infringement is a civil offense (no matter how much content owners would like to call it theft), and as a result doesn't fall under criminal laws and rules. For injunctive relief - what Viacom is asking for - you need to show up with 'clean hands', ie: you need to not be doing what your asking to stop the other party from doing.
Where on YouTube can I watch a season of [TV show]?
'cos seriously, I've been using this bit torrent thing, and it's just too damned much trouble. All this uncut high quality fullscreen video scares me. Give me five hundered blurry ten-minute clips in a tiny little subscreen any day; that I understand.
I dunno. The protocol, far as I can tell is fine. The implementation, at least the standard X server, is a POS.
Meanwhile, some of the purpose-built X-servers do a good job. X-Glx with Beryl makes Aero look like ass. KDrive is light enough to fit on a floppy. X-Ming is a great tool for porting X apps to windows.
Also, your demands for an end to X-Windows based on a story about Mozilla Desktop Environment is kinda dumb; MDE would run atop XWin, just like any other DE.
'course, you're just trolling AC, so you don't care about things like facts; just so long as you get a rise out of people. Once again, normal human + anonymity = rabid idiot.
Economically it's problematic to use ethanol, but environmentally, that's at 15% reduction in the amount of added overall carbon emissions (ie: the carbon in ethanol comes from existing CO2 in the air that has become trapped in corn, then converted to ethanol). Gasoline, on the other hand, is made of carbon that's been trapped in the ground for god knows how many years; pulling it out and burning it changes the overall atmospheric balance.
Also, ethanol burns cleaner, almost entirely into H2O/CO2. Gasoline does not.
Meanwhile, if cars were tuned for ethanol (via a few timing and fuel intake changes at the minimum, and block modifications at the worst), or even using the newer Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells, you'd get higher efficiency (something like 45% carnot over ICE's nominal 20-25%) and thus lower fuel costs.
I don't know why greenies are opposing ethanol, but I suspect it's resistance to the inevitable agricultural sprawl and fertilizer pollutants that would come from mass adoption of ethanol as a primary fuel source. Of course, I also don't know why corn is being used; other plants, like Jerusalem Artichokes, have much (about 12x) higher fermentation yields than corn per acre, and take less fertilization and care to grow.
That said, there's no reason to subsidize a new and attractive fuel; the market should incorporate it at its own speed. But you know government: something must be done, this is something, this must be done.
Fullscreen apps: Browser, Office App, and basically nothing else.
In Windows, the FTP client is an explorer window; you just drag from one to another. No need to maximize. iTunes needs to be maximized, but only because its fur is matted with UI clutter compared to a small-window player like Winamp. Text editors don't generally need put in fullscreen, but sometimes it helps to be able to get there so you can overview a large chunk of code.
A good website will scale to whatever size your browser will, within limits. That said, how many 'good' websites are out there? Five? The rest expect you to browse at FS at a resolution of at least 1024x768.
Flaming, by the way, would be if I started throwing out insults. I know the religious community is deeply offended by my comments likening them to Mac zealots, but the parallel exists. I just pointed it out.
I've never gotten so many replies to a post. I guess it seemed I was defending the patent. I was not. I was saying it was for triply linked lists - which is essentially just as old as the doubly-linked list. That wasn't the point. The point was that the article title was a bit misleading, or so I thought.
For clarity: I don't believe this is a defensible patent, and I'm certain that if it came down to it, the patent would fall. The USPTO really needs to fire this guy, as every patent I saw that he's passed is something that I can think of prior art older than seven years.
Then they need to go over their patent application and review process and GET IT RIGHT. Otherwise, all they're doing is passing the buck to the already overloaded civil court system and making money for lawyers.
Now, I'm not saying I know how to do patent review correctly, but you don't have to be a brain surgeon - or even a moderately clever dishwasher - to know they've got it wrong.
It's functionally different from any Array; a Linked list is a class that has pointers for the 'next' object any number of sequences, as well as a pointer to the actual data. People seem to think that I was defending the patent in my OP, but I wasn't. I was just clarifying it.
And real scotsmen don't use macs. Please drop that stupid 'tude.
"and since the menu bar (for example) is not part of the movable window, it's not neccessary"
I don't get your logic. Because the menubar, a 20pixel row of space, is not part of the movable window, it's not necessary to maximize the window to get the maximum available browsing area?
"Exposé and the overall design makes it more powerful and productive to use like 'square'-formed windows"
You'd think Exposé would make it a simple thing to use ALL fullscreen windows. Meanwhile, I can only think of a couple apps I wouldn't want to run full-screen. But then, I'm kind of adept at using keyboard shortcuts. I can see how you could be unproductive if no one ever told you about 'alt-tab'.
"and not the full 1280x1024 or whatever... I miss those nice and handy space-saving windows always when I'm under Windows!"
Hm. I suppose the rumor that "there's no cure for religion" is more or less true, especially for Mac zealots.
Almost the entire history of programming back to C is an example of prior art. I learned about this shit in my data structures class, first year in college.
Seriously, fuck prior art. This has a prior gallery.
"I have yet to hear a convincing argument why Babbage's engine, which uses physical mechanical gears to implement an algorithm, is inherently more patentable than the same algorithm in software. How about if I use an FPGA instead? Is it patentable then?"
Easy: Babbage had to design the gears, switches, etc, and the arrangement thereof to get the effect of calculation. That's patentable. The algorithm he intended to use it to accomplish is not; it's just an artifact of math, and subject to the natural laws clause.
If you used an FPGA, you could patent the arrangement of gate-feilds, possibly, but the algorithm you're trying to achieve would (should) still not be patentable.
Well, if your read the patent, it's for triply-linked lists, the purpose for which I can only fathom. Possibly, it's easier to sequence them for block encryption or somesuch. Though, I also imagine that the patent will get killed for its obviousness; adding a tertiary pointer when you need to access a list via another sequence is pretty damned obvious.
I can tell you, though; the ones in Philadelphia are getting shafted by the internet. Of course, it's the states and most people do own a computer. And the ones that can't use it proper are also the least likely to buy a bootleg disc. Somehow, the computer illiterate are more likely to avoid picking up hot merch.
I'm not going to argue your point; it costs money to create content. The problem I see is that Viacom are suing over low-quality clips of their work. As far as I'm concerned, a clip is not infringement; it's free advertising.
No, seriously. When was the last time you saw a full ep of the daily show on YouTube?
Ok, ok. So YouTube is making advert money off these clips. I doubt its as much as Viacom is claiming; their work - their 30 second to ten minute clips make up a tiny portion of YouTube's content.
It seems to me that if you modify a plant to provide as little nutritive value as possible, contain an anti-bug enzyme, and essentially make the stuff permanently shelf-stable, it's no longer something that should be considered edible.
Not even for the GMO fear that a lot of humans (both smart and incredibly stupid) have.
"I don't want anyone monitoring the trail of web sites I visit daily, no more than I would like someone following me around in a car while I run run my daily errands."
Actually, think of it more like yelling, 'HEY LET ME GET SOME OF THAT PORN' out your front door. IP without encryption is not secure. Even when it is, SOMEONE's logging your connection activity.
But relax. It's more for maintenance's sake than for exploitation's.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, he was making the distinction between civil and criminal offenses. Infringement is a civil offense (no matter how much content owners would like to call it theft), and as a result doesn't fall under criminal laws and rules. For injunctive relief - what Viacom is asking for - you need to show up with 'clean hands', ie: you need to not be doing what your asking to stop the other party from doing.
Where on YouTube can I watch a season of [TV show]?
'cos seriously, I've been using this bit torrent thing, and it's just too damned much trouble. All this uncut high quality fullscreen video scares me. Give me five hundered blurry ten-minute clips in a tiny little subscreen any day; that I understand.
O.O
Um. Do they not know the free tools to do so?
I dunno. The protocol, far as I can tell is fine. The implementation, at least the standard X server, is a POS.
Meanwhile, some of the purpose-built X-servers do a good job. X-Glx with Beryl makes Aero look like ass. KDrive is light enough to fit on a floppy. X-Ming is a great tool for porting X apps to windows.
Also, your demands for an end to X-Windows based on a story about Mozilla Desktop Environment is kinda dumb; MDE would run atop XWin, just like any other DE.
'course, you're just trolling AC, so you don't care about things like facts; just so long as you get a rise out of people. Once again, normal human + anonymity = rabid idiot.
Economically it's problematic to use ethanol, but environmentally, that's at 15% reduction in the amount of added overall carbon emissions (ie: the carbon in ethanol comes from existing CO2 in the air that has become trapped in corn, then converted to ethanol). Gasoline, on the other hand, is made of carbon that's been trapped in the ground for god knows how many years; pulling it out and burning it changes the overall atmospheric balance.
Also, ethanol burns cleaner, almost entirely into H2O/CO2. Gasoline does not.
Meanwhile, if cars were tuned for ethanol (via a few timing and fuel intake changes at the minimum, and block modifications at the worst), or even using the newer Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells, you'd get higher efficiency (something like 45% carnot over ICE's nominal 20-25%) and thus lower fuel costs.
I don't know why greenies are opposing ethanol, but I suspect it's resistance to the inevitable agricultural sprawl and fertilizer pollutants that would come from mass adoption of ethanol as a primary fuel source. Of course, I also don't know why corn is being used; other plants, like Jerusalem Artichokes, have much (about 12x) higher fermentation yields than corn per acre, and take less fertilization and care to grow.
That said, there's no reason to subsidize a new and attractive fuel; the market should incorporate it at its own speed. But you know government: something must be done, this is something, this must be done.
Fullscreen apps: Browser, Office App, and basically nothing else.
In Windows, the FTP client is an explorer window; you just drag from one to another. No need to maximize. iTunes needs to be maximized, but only because its fur is matted with UI clutter compared to a small-window player like Winamp. Text editors don't generally need put in fullscreen, but sometimes it helps to be able to get there so you can overview a large chunk of code.
A good website will scale to whatever size your browser will, within limits. That said, how many 'good' websites are out there? Five? The rest expect you to browse at FS at a resolution of at least 1024x768.
Flaming, by the way, would be if I started throwing out insults. I know the religious community is deeply offended by my comments likening them to Mac zealots, but the parallel exists. I just pointed it out.
Wow.
I've never gotten so many replies to a post. I guess it seemed I was defending the patent. I was not. I was saying it was for triply linked lists - which is essentially just as old as the doubly-linked list. That wasn't the point. The point was that the article title was a bit misleading, or so I thought.
For clarity: I don't believe this is a defensible patent, and I'm certain that if it came down to it, the patent would fall. The USPTO really needs to fire this guy, as every patent I saw that he's passed is something that I can think of prior art older than seven years.
Then they need to go over their patent application and review process and GET IT RIGHT. Otherwise, all they're doing is passing the buck to the already overloaded civil court system and making money for lawyers.
Now, I'm not saying I know how to do patent review correctly, but you don't have to be a brain surgeon - or even a moderately clever dishwasher - to know they've got it wrong.
Yeah. You notice there's no 'Zealotous Fanboy' category. I guess I'm one of the few ^_^.
No, seriously. This is the kind of marketer-speak that gets nothing done whatsoever. There IS nothing to see here.
Hey, go easy on them. I only got modded flamebait because I made a parallel between Mac users and religious zealots.
That was very mean to the religious zealots.
It's functionally different from any Array; a Linked list is a class that has pointers for the 'next' object any number of sequences, as well as a pointer to the actual data. People seem to think that I was defending the patent in my OP, but I wasn't. I was just clarifying it.
"real Mac Users don't browse at full screen"
And real scotsmen don't use macs. Please drop that stupid 'tude.
"and since the menu bar (for example) is not part of the movable window, it's not neccessary"
I don't get your logic. Because the menubar, a 20pixel row of space, is not part of the movable window, it's not necessary to maximize the window to get the maximum available browsing area?
"Exposé and the overall design makes it more powerful and productive to use like 'square'-formed windows"
You'd think Exposé would make it a simple thing to use ALL fullscreen windows. Meanwhile, I can only think of a couple apps I wouldn't want to run full-screen. But then, I'm kind of adept at using keyboard shortcuts. I can see how you could be unproductive if no one ever told you about 'alt-tab'.
"and not the full 1280x1024 or whatever... I miss those nice and handy space-saving windows always when I'm under Windows!"
Hm. I suppose the rumor that "there's no cure for religion" is more or less true, especially for Mac zealots.
Or, at the very least, Google. For god's sake, the patent's TITLE is 'Linked List'.
No, there's never been nothin' called a 'Linked List' before. All that stuff you find on the internet is hogwash.
Almost the entire history of programming back to C is an example of prior art. I learned about this shit in my data structures class, first year in college.
Seriously, fuck prior art. This has a prior gallery.
"I have yet to hear a convincing argument why Babbage's engine, which uses physical mechanical gears to implement an algorithm, is inherently more patentable than the same algorithm in software. How about if I use an FPGA instead? Is it patentable then?"
Easy: Babbage had to design the gears, switches, etc, and the arrangement thereof to get the effect of calculation. That's patentable. The algorithm he intended to use it to accomplish is not; it's just an artifact of math, and subject to the natural laws clause.
If you used an FPGA, you could patent the arrangement of gate-feilds, possibly, but the algorithm you're trying to achieve would (should) still not be patentable.
You've still got it wrong. It's an abstracted class.
You cannot dereference the pointer; that's impossible. You must first realize that there is no pointer, and that you're only dereferencing yourself.
Well, if your read the patent, it's for triply-linked lists, the purpose for which I can only fathom. Possibly, it's easier to sequence them for block encryption or somesuch. Though, I also imagine that the patent will get killed for its obviousness; adding a tertiary pointer when you need to access a list via another sequence is pretty damned obvious.
By the by, why DOESN'T OS-X have a maximize button? Seriously. It's frustrating trying to browse at less-than-full-screen.
I can tell you, though; the ones in Philadelphia are getting shafted by the internet. Of course, it's the states and most people do own a computer. And the ones that can't use it proper are also the least likely to buy a bootleg disc. Somehow, the computer illiterate are more likely to avoid picking up hot merch.
Instantiated (but unterminated). As in: the pass was thrown, but not caught.
I'm not going to argue your point; it costs money to create content. The problem I see is that Viacom are suing over low-quality clips of their work. As far as I'm concerned, a clip is not infringement; it's free advertising.
No, seriously. When was the last time you saw a full ep of the daily show on YouTube?
Ok, ok. So YouTube is making advert money off these clips. I doubt its as much as Viacom is claiming; their work - their 30 second to ten minute clips make up a tiny portion of YouTube's content.
I dunno, but I can posit that Viacom is the Empire, and YouTube are the rebel forces.
Meh. The problem is that Slashdotters by and large don't get football analogies, for the obvious reasons.
It doesn't help that it's not really applicable. This is closer to a bounds check (programming) than an instantiated pass (football).
Apparently, long enough for you to write that post.
I dunno.
It seems to me that if you modify a plant to provide as little nutritive value as possible, contain an anti-bug enzyme, and essentially make the stuff permanently shelf-stable, it's no longer something that should be considered edible.
Not even for the GMO fear that a lot of humans (both smart and incredibly stupid) have.
"I don't want anyone monitoring the trail of web sites I visit daily, no more than I would like someone following me around in a car while I run run my daily errands."
Actually, think of it more like yelling, 'HEY LET ME GET SOME OF THAT PORN' out your front door. IP without encryption is not secure. Even when it is, SOMEONE's logging your connection activity.
But relax. It's more for maintenance's sake than for exploitation's.