Just because you're naive doesn't mean you're right.
I didn't say I was right. But someone's going to have to prove it to me active sonar is NEEDED!
We need sonar because people we don't implicitly trust (Iran, China, Russia, NKorea?) have submarines.
So? That doesn't prove it's needed.
They are not under our control.
Good! I don't want to control anyone and I don't believe we should act like an empire or bullies.
The fact is we have potential enemies.
And we are potential enemies to others. The US supported the invasion and overthrow of a number of other countries resulting on the death of a lot of people. After President Ford and Henry Kissinger supported Soharto's Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor200,000 East Timerese were massacred. After they supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile tens of thousands disappeared. The US supported military in Guetmala massacred the Mayans. The US invaded Iraq supposedly to get rid of Saddam Hussein but originally the US supported him. Both Reagan and Bush Sr armed Saddam. The Shah of Iran was supported in his overthrow of another democratically elected government.
Don't try to tell me the US is some angel in shining armor.
When I played Phil Collins' Another Day In Paradise through a 1000-watt underwater speaker during an acoustics experiment near the Hudson Canyon a decade and a half ago, it was still readily audible to the hydrophone arrays towed by the other ships miles away.
Jonesy, is that you? That can be heard all the way down to Pearl Harbor.
And a dolphin might very well be curious about a ship, and head toward it. But unless they're dumb as posts, they'll turn away before the sonar reaches the "deafening" level.
I may be wrong but I think active sonar sends a loud blast all at once and doesn't slowly build up. Dolphins are not given the chance to get out of the way.
If you accept that then you have to accept the fact that the Navy needs to practice with it before they need it in an actual shooting war. Sucks that it apparently harms marine life but what can you do?
"As an IT administrator did you ever think of replacing disks by SSDs? Or using SSDs as an intermediate caching layer?
SSDs aren't big enough for some uses as mass storage but they could speed up things if used as a cache.
Note that this paper has nothing to do with laptop workloads, for which SSDs probably make more sense (due to SSDs' ruggedness)."
I think laptops are where SSDs can come into their own. There shouldn't as much need to large mass storage and SSDs extend battery life. Having said that, I replaced the 160GB HDD in my 1 1/2 year old laptop with a 320GB drive, the biggest I could find.
How are they going to prove the "unemployed" didn't falsify information?
By calling the previous employer. Sure it could be someone the applier knows but if the person calls and gives bad info they would be risking their own reputation.
they have to spend a lot of effort making sure the "company" is not the friend of a scammer.
BTW, I don't think these companies should be doing this. Instead if they're going to do anything let everyone download and use a special edition if nothing else.
Because it's software and is written. Writings already enjoy copyrights. Patents protect actual physical goods. A specific implementation of a CPU, car engine, or knife. And a patent application used to require a working model of what is being patented. However while patents may of been helpful at one tyme they no longer are. Instead they delay progress.
Since the article being discussed deals with Apple patents and Apple not willing to let the W3C use them, here's another story about Apple and patents: "Taiwan's Elan sues Apple over touchscreen patents"". I don't know how many patents are sought for these reasons but a number of patents are either held by patent trolls or are for protection, you come up with something you think is unique and use it. Now if you don't patent it someone else may slap you with a patent infringement lawsuit. But of you have a bunch of patents you may find one the other party uses, so you can sign a cross licensing agreement.
A good proportion of undergraduate computer scientists can not explain RSA after having it explained to them more than once. Society as a whole has benefited from having it disclosed - the entire reason patents exist -
Copyrights also require disclosure, so patents are not needed for this.
Unlike most software patents, it is not something that could be easily reproduced by someone seeing the effect.
It is an algorithm and they should not be patented. Neither should business methods.
Personally, I think that software patents are just a flat-out bad idea, so while I appreciate the manner in which Apple refused to license the patent, I'm not feeling much love for them either. If a company or person possesses a software patent which is hindering the creation of open standards then I am doubly at odds as to why they should be indulged.
I agree, software should not be patented. However because businesses are granted patents on software others need to stockpile software patents as well as a defensive measure. Apple has been and will again be sued for patent infringement and by having their own patents they could defend themselves against being sued.
Would the employees, in the process of drafting the spec, purposefully leave out interesting mechanisms so that they could later be patented by Apple?
They could but if it is documented then Apple applies for a patent then the patent could be appealed.
Obviously there's a technically simple method to solve this, outlaw software patents. Unfortunately it's a lot harder to solve politically.
Assuming this story is true, and while I normally rush to Apple's defence, this is totally unacceptable.
Yea, it is unacceptable.
This sort of patent stockpiling is getting as bad as that of Microsoft or IBM.
Software should not be patented period!!!
Worse, at least IBM uses some of their patents to protect open source projects
Apple supports open source projects as well. Apple Developer Connection has a website for open source. And if you search Apple's download section you can find a lot of open source software.
Tell that to Apple. Every iMac I've ever used was "shiny" and also sucked in terms of performance.
After having used Windows PCs for years I switched. The quality of my Mac is so much better than any of my PCs, both Linux and Windows. Now I'm not saying it's all been roses, there have been thorns, but my Macs has performed a lot better.
So if you are doing a massive 3d render (or other processing job) which takes hours or days and the program doesn't store its work on disk until it is finished, then you lose all that work because MS decided at that time to update your computer. How nice.
Or perhaps it does save, but you lose the time it would be working because obviously you aren't at your work computer at 4AM to restart it.
Though it wasn't obvious users could turn off auto-updates. And Windows does restart on it's own. I don't recall how many tymes I ran Windows Update and was told it would take X minutes or hours to download, apply, then reboot the PC. But it was a lot, on Win95/98/ME and NT4 PCs. I could click Okay then go do something else and when I'd get back to it my desktop would be ready.
You don't have to implement an idea to patent it. In fact, you can't patent an implementation of a concept, only the concept itself.
It used to be that in the US concepts could not be patented, only specific implementations could be. If two people came up with different ways to solve the same problem they both could get patents.
I believe the requirement for a patent is to disclose sufficient description for one "skilled in the art" to be able to repeat the invention, not necessarily give the entire recipe.
Apparently it's not now but a working model used to be required for a patent. Copyrights used to be the same, the entire text had to be submitted, but now just snippets of code are submitted for software.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you're naive doesn't mean you're right.
I didn't say I was right. But someone's going to have to prove it to me active sonar is NEEDED!
We need sonar because people we don't implicitly trust (Iran, China, Russia, NKorea?) have submarines.
So? That doesn't prove it's needed.
They are not under our control.
Good! I don't want to control anyone and I don't believe we should act like an empire or bullies.
The fact is we have potential enemies.
And we are potential enemies to others. The US supported the invasion and overthrow of a number of other countries resulting on the death of a lot of people. After President Ford and Henry Kissinger supported Soharto's Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor 200,000 East Timerese were massacred. After they supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of the democratically elected government in Chile tens of thousands disappeared. The US supported military in Guetmala massacred the Mayans. The US invaded Iraq supposedly to get rid of Saddam Hussein but originally the US supported him. Both Reagan and Bush Sr armed Saddam. The Shah of Iran was supported in his overthrow of another democratically elected government.
Don't try to tell me the US is some angel in shining armor.
Falcon
When I played Phil Collins' Another Day In Paradise through a 1000-watt underwater speaker during an acoustics experiment near the Hudson Canyon a decade and a half ago, it was still readily audible to the hydrophone arrays towed by the other ships miles away.
Jonesy, is that you? That can be heard all the way down to Pearl Harbor.
Falcon
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=48723961015
That study used fish. Fish are not mammals but dolphins, porpoises, and whales are.
Not that I personally believe it don't effect them, though we may not know how to tell.
Marine mammals are shown to hemorrhage from sonar.
Falcon
So why only military sonar? Couldn't this happen even with regular sonar?
The military uses loud bursts of sound.
Or is the military using more sound than is necessary?
Some think so.
Falcon
It's common knowledge that exposure to 200+ decibels will make anything deaf. And this Dr. Mooney is an idiot.
It's not common knowledge to the US Navy. That, or they just don't care.
Falcon
And a dolphin might very well be curious about a ship, and head toward it. But unless they're dumb as posts, they'll turn away before the sonar reaches the "deafening" level.
I may be wrong but I think active sonar sends a loud blast all at once and doesn't slowly build up. Dolphins are not given the chance to get out of the way.
Falcon
Yes, but this experiment was concerned with levels 100 times higher, over 200 dB. The odds of dolphins being THAT close to ships doesn't seem likely.
You don't think dolphins get that close to ships? Dolphins literally swim along side ships within feet. Flickr has some photos of this.
Falcon
And the crowd yelling, "DEY TOOK OUR JAHBS and sent them oversez" loudest are the leftist/big labor(must pass card check) crowd.
Check about half way down, Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs. Both conservatives and pseudo-liberals support immigrants, their approach and limits are different though. "Conservatives and Liberals agree: Immigration is not a bad word."
I'd personally kill every Dolphin myself if it would save a human life.
Ah, if you kill every dolphin, you'll also be killing humans. Though rare, dolphins have saved humans, especially from sharks.
Falcon
Well, I know you'll never hear a Canadian sub coming... what with them being permanently enclosed in the West Edmonton Mall. :D
Canada only has 4 subs? Weren't the builders Persians?
Falcon
If you accept that then you have to accept the fact that the Navy needs to practice with it before they need it in an actual shooting war. Sucks that it apparently harms marine life but what can you do?
Not use it. I don't accept that it's needed.
Falcon
Hm. I was thinking the same thing about the ACM subscription.
Try Google.
Falcon
"As an IT administrator did you ever think of replacing disks by SSDs? Or using SSDs as an intermediate caching layer?
SSDs aren't big enough for some uses as mass storage but they could speed up things if used as a cache.
Note that this paper has nothing to do with laptop workloads, for which SSDs probably make more sense (due to SSDs' ruggedness)."
I think laptops are where SSDs can come into their own. There shouldn't as much need to large mass storage and SSDs extend battery life. Having said that, I replaced the 160GB HDD in my 1 1/2 year old laptop with a 320GB drive, the biggest I could find.
Falcon
How are they going to prove the "unemployed" didn't falsify information?
By calling the previous employer. Sure it could be someone the applier knows but if the person calls and gives bad info they would be risking their own reputation.
they have to spend a lot of effort making sure the "company" is not the friend of a scammer.
reverse phone lookup. It won't prevent a scam but it can help.
BTW, I don't think these companies should be doing this. Instead if they're going to do anything let everyone download and use a special edition if nothing else.
Falcon
Because it's software and is written. Writings already enjoy copyrights. Patents protect actual physical goods. A specific implementation of a CPU, car engine, or knife. And a patent application used to require a working model of what is being patented. However while patents may of been helpful at one tyme they no longer are. Instead they delay progress.
Since the article being discussed deals with Apple patents and Apple not willing to let the W3C use them, here's another story about Apple and patents: "Taiwan's Elan sues Apple over touchscreen patents"". I don't know how many patents are sought for these reasons but a number of patents are either held by patent trolls or are for protection, you come up with something you think is unique and use it. Now if you don't patent it someone else may slap you with a patent infringement lawsuit. But of you have a bunch of patents you may find one the other party uses, so you can sign a cross licensing agreement.
A good proportion of undergraduate computer scientists can not explain RSA after having it explained to them more than once. Society as a whole has benefited from having it disclosed - the entire reason patents exist -
Copyrights also require disclosure, so patents are not needed for this.
Unlike most software patents, it is not something that could be easily reproduced by someone seeing the effect.
It is an algorithm and they should not be patented. Neither should business methods.
Falcon
Personally, I think that software patents are just a flat-out bad idea, so while I appreciate the manner in which Apple refused to license the patent, I'm not feeling much love for them either. If a company or person possesses a software patent which is hindering the creation of open standards then I am doubly at odds as to why they should be indulged.
I agree, software should not be patented. However because businesses are granted patents on software others need to stockpile software patents as well as a defensive measure. Apple has been and will again be sued for patent infringement and by having their own patents they could defend themselves against being sued.
Would the employees, in the process of drafting the spec, purposefully leave out interesting mechanisms so that they could later be patented by Apple?
They could but if it is documented then Apple applies for a patent then the patent could be appealed.
Obviously there's a technically simple method to solve this, outlaw software patents. Unfortunately it's a lot harder to solve politically.
Falcon
First of all, I'm not entirely sold on the source of this story, since it does come from Opera's website.
Okay, try this: "Apple refusing royalty-free license to widget patent". The CNet article says nothing about Opera.
Assuming this story is true, and while I normally rush to Apple's defence, this is totally unacceptable.
Yea, it is unacceptable.
This sort of patent stockpiling is getting as bad as that of Microsoft or IBM.
Software should not be patented period!!!
Worse, at least IBM uses some of their patents to protect open source projects
Apple supports open source projects as well. Apple Developer Connection has a website for open source. And if you search Apple's download section you can find a lot of open source software.
Falcon
Yes patents can be revoked. In the US anyone can file to have a patent revoked.
Falcon
Tell that to Apple. Every iMac I've ever used was "shiny" and also sucked in terms of performance.
After having used Windows PCs for years I switched. The quality of my Mac is so much better than any of my PCs, both Linux and Windows. Now I'm not saying it's all been roses, there have been thorns, but my Macs has performed a lot better.
Falcon
So if you are doing a massive 3d render (or other processing job) which takes hours or days and the program doesn't store its work on disk until it is finished, then you lose all that work because MS decided at that time to update your computer. How nice.
Or perhaps it does save, but you lose the time it would be working because obviously you aren't at your work computer at 4AM to restart it.
Though it wasn't obvious users could turn off auto-updates. And Windows does restart on it's own. I don't recall how many tymes I ran Windows Update and was told it would take X minutes or hours to download, apply, then reboot the PC. But it was a lot, on Win95/98/ME and NT4 PCs. I could click Okay then go do something else and when I'd get back to it my desktop would be ready.
Falcon
We need someone to confess he was using MacOS back in 1990s, tough job on Slashdot :)
I used it then. And Linux and Windows.
Falcon
is a red herring. of course there's no need for restart, the program isn't running yet!
I've had to restart my computer a number of tymes after updating software on it.
Falcon
I know. I have not seen a valid software patent.
RSA seems worthy. That's the only one I've ever come across.
RSA may be worthy, but of a copyright not a patent. No software should be patented.
Falcon
You don't have to implement an idea to patent it. In fact, you can't patent an implementation of a concept, only the concept itself.
It used to be that in the US concepts could not be patented, only specific implementations could be. If two people came up with different ways to solve the same problem they both could get patents.
Falcon
I believe the requirement for a patent is to disclose sufficient description for one "skilled in the art" to be able to repeat the invention, not necessarily give the entire recipe.
Apparently it's not now but a working model used to be required for a patent. Copyrights used to be the same, the entire text had to be submitted, but now just snippets of code are submitted for software.
Falcon