Nice summary of the problem with patent durations. As you say, they cannot be suited to all fields; the duration is too short for slow moving fields, yet too fast for rapidly advancing fields.
So let me throw in a wild idea that just occurred to me (if it occurred to someone else previously, you should have patented it;)
The duration of a patent needs to vary according to the field it's awarded in. Short for computing and biotech, but long for piano-making. How to decide the different durations? Setting them artifically seems like it's going to be a really difficult issue. So how about turning the problem back upon itself.
Rapidly moving fields will have loads of patents filed in them, whereas slower developing fields will just have a trickle of patents.
So why not tie the duration of a patent to the number or rate of patents being awarded in that field? Create something like the stock market that's self regulating - as more people buy, the price goes up.
That way you automatically shorten the duration of patents in fast moving fields, while not adversely affecting developments in piano-building say.
Plus, it has the advantage that it may serve to deter the filing of frivolous patents, as anyone who did so would be shortening the duration of any other patents they held in that field. You could argue that this could be done deliberately, to shorten competitors' patents, but the company doing so would still need to come up with an invention of their own.
I'm sure that there are plenty of practical difficulties, such as determining the number of patents in a particular field, and what field a new patent applies to, but hey, it's just an idea.
One of the arguments against patenting software is that software is an expression of an algorithm. Algorithms can be considered a form of mathematics and there is philosophical debate over whether mathematics can be subject to innovation, or simply discovery
Ah yes, but can't you apply this to any kind of invention? If you devise a better mouse trap, then that better technique has always existed, and you're just the first to discover it.
Any new idea is arguably just the discovery of some technique that's always been possible. Why should mathematics be treated differently?
I'd argue that copyright doesn't provide enough protection for innovative techniques, since it only stops you from literally copying them, but leaves you free to re-implement them in your own words.
If I copy your source code, I'll get busted. But what about if I change all the variable names? Is that still a copy?
How about I substitute the for loops with while loops? And change the sorting algorithms. And implement it in a different language.
I'd argue that you've now managed to escape copyright whilst still essentially ripping off the original inventor.
Copyright doesn't provide for protection of the underlying idea - and that's the true innovation. The eureka moment - the "aha! if I build a table like so, and analyse the values like this, then I can..." process that's the core of the technique.
In contrast, a patent would protect the technique itself, so would seem more suitable for protecting the invention.
Obviously a patent on "compressing data" would be absurd, but wouldn't it be fair to grant a patent on that specific table-analysing technique?
The thing is, many of the arguments seem to be confusing 2 separate issues:
1) Should pure software be patentable? 2) Should the patent system be reformed?
Nearly all of the arguments I've seen, including the bullet points in the article you linked to, attack point 2. But there appear to be precious few arguments targetted specifically against point 1.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the patent system is in desperate need of reform, but all the fuss in the EU at the moment is over whether software should be patentable, and as such I think we need more and better arguments specifically against that.
I'm sure that many/most researchers do have a strong desire to benefit mankind with their inventions.
But human nature has shown that the amount of work people are prepared to do is linked pretty closely to the reward they can expect. If you're going to be paid the same whether you work 9 to 5, or really work your ass off, most people are going to do the least amount possible.
For the AI example, say you did invent it, and gave it away for the benefit of all mankind. Now Microsoft implements this AI in the next version of Windows and it becomes a huge selling point and makes them billions. Meanwhile, you make nothing (or worse, a pittance trouble-shooting the Windows implementation). Does that seem fair?
the innovation progress in the software field doesn't benefit from software patents...
I think what you mean is that software innovation seems to be doing OK without patents.
But that doesn't automatically exclude the possibility that there might be *even more* innovation if patents were introduced.
An example: people attack Microsoft for lack of innovation. Software like Office hasn't had any real innovation for years, if ever. But if MS *did* come up with something radically innovative in the next version of Office, it would also be implemented in OpenOffice the following week. So MS has no incentive to innovate. Whereas, with patents, MS would gain a real competitive advantage from their innovation.
Therefore software patents would produce more innovation?
To date I have been strongly against software patents, but now I'm starting to wonder. Is the problem with the patents themselves, or merely with the way that they are awarded?
Most people here seem to take it as read that "pure software" should not be patentable. But the "because it shouldn't" argument just isn't good enough, frankly. If we're going to argue effectively against software patents, then we need to back up our arguments with solid reasoning.
To that effect, I'm going to play Devil's advocate and set out the case *for* software patents. Please feel free to attack my reasoning, but only if you can provide valid reasoning of your own, not just "because I think so".
Let's take the example of the car braking system. People say that only the mechanical element of the system should be patentable, whereas the software should be excluded. But the mechanical part is just a few bits of metal, bolted together in much the same way that's been done for 100 years. All the real innovation in such a system is in the software, by far the most complex part of the system. It's here that most of the development effort was expended, and where most of the innovation took place.
Another example: the GIF patents. Sure they were a pain, but what sort of reason is that? Doesn't the invention of a new way to compress data justify reward? If you came up with a way to compress any data to 1% of its original size say, would you be happy to just give it away and get nothing for your efforts?
By witholding patents from pure software, you're effectively stating that there is no significant innovation in the field. That might come as a bit of a shock to many computer scientists. Say someone puts in a number of really late nights, and cracks computer vision. Or develops working AI. Or a significant breakthrough in untrained continuous speech recognition. Are they expected to just give away the answer for free? "It was amazing work, shame they couldn't afford to remain in the field"...
How about the argument that patents on algorithms will turn software development into a trip through a minefield? Well, say you're developing that new braking system. Who's to say that you won't stumble across a number of patents in the design of the mechanical aspects? So why should the software aspect be treated differently?
Couldn't the risk in software development actually be lower, because you could make use of libraries of known patent-free algorithms? Couldn't you even have tools that check if you likely to be infringing on any patents?
Most of the problems people have are with the way that patents are awarded (for obvious things), enforced (submarine patents), or abused (bankrupt you in court). The problem isn't with *software* patents, it's with *patents*. As such, software patents should be allowed, and reform of the patent system should be the priority. People are fighting the wrong battle here.
Sony has stated repeatedly that they were aiming for a machine that was 1000 times more powerful than the PS2, and with talk of a 4 or 8 cell machine, it looked like they might come at least respectably close to that figure.
But now we find out that it's only 35 times quicker than a PS2? It's a fair advance obviously, but it's a hell of a long way short of what we were promised. So I suspect that, as with the PS2, all the talk of real-time photo realistic graphics will turn out to be just that; talk.
It's a nice machine, sure, but evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
I would have thought that a major reason why Morse code is quicker is that it has data compression built in - the more frequently used letters are shorter, while the less frequently used ones are longer.
Compare that with SMS, where "s" requires 4 button presses, and "e" takes 2.
So the SMS sender was effectively competing with someone sending a zipped version of the message.
Unlike SMS, Morse code was carefully designed for sending data as fast as possible, so it's hardly surprising that it does just that.
This is not a one time pad - the key is not the same length as the data in this scheme; the article points out that keys are only 256 bits long, obviously far less than the number of bits in a frame.
The "quantum cryptography" bit is only to stop you from intercepting the keys, in the same way that PGP doesn't apply public-key encryption to the whole message, only the keys to a symmetric cypher.
As such, the 256 bit keyspace is eminently brute forceable.
If it is possible to brute force one key, it is possible to brute force many keys.
Um, no. You might be able to brute force a single key, if you've got a supercomputer handy and a few months to spare. But brute forcing x keys will take x times as long.
With this technique, even if you did force a key, that'd only get you single lousy frame, which is a helluva lot more secure than the old way, where you would have gotten the whole stream. Now, to get the next frame, you've got to repeat the cracking process all over again.
To those objecting to exchanging virtual goods for real money, please explain how money is any more "real" than the objects in this game. Money is just a concept; those pieces of paper don't have any intrinsic worth. Hell, even an amount of gold isn't instrinsically "worth" anything, except the price put on it by those who might wish to acquire it.
As for the objections that Sony can create new virtual goods from thin air - isn't this what Microsoft does every time they release a new software package? How is Office "real"?
Regarding the complaint that this system will favour the rich, isn't this already the case in that rich people can afford better PCs - ie: the advantage conferred in FPSs by higher frame rates.
And finally, to those worried about cheating or viruses, or crashes or whatever; since the vast majority of "real" money only exists electronically these days, the exact same issues are faced by banks, and they seem to do OK. It can be done right.
It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out. I wonder if they're going to have to make use of the same tools as in the "real" economy, such as controls of the interest rate and so forth.
Yeah, if you think popup ads are annoying now, just wait another 10 years until we have the technology whereby they leap out of the screen and slap you around the face with a dead haddock.
What a massive co-incidence that Dell threatened (again) to look at supplying AMD chips just days ago. Not.
I wonder if the threats did them any good, or if Intel have now got so used to the cries of wolf that they called Dell's bluff? Intel probably told Dell to shut the hell up or miss out on the launch.
As many have said before on Slashdot, if companies like Sony (who already produce both MP3 players and car stereos) had any sense at all, they would come up with integrated systems where the MP3 player serves as the detachable faceplate for the car stereo.
Doing this kills two birds with one stone. When you're in the car, you get your whole music collection with you, and when you leave the car, you can take it all with you, leaving nothing of value in the car.
But as Sony has repeatedly shown, they haven't got a friggin' clue. This is the company that is *still* attempting to flog their bloody ATRAC format. How many people on the street have even heard of ATRAC, much less care what it is?
Sony, WAKE UP, get a clue, produce a "proper" MP3 player, and brand it "MP3 Walkman" so that the whole world knows what it is and what it does.
Isn't that just the same as with video recorders? First they tried to ban them, and when that failed, they figured out a way to use them to their advantage to make huge profits.
I did have to think a bit to come up with a class of problems that can't be parallelized, but I think I have it.
From your example of compiling the kernel; imagine if file A depends on file B. You have to deal with file B first, parallelism can't help. (Well, maybe you can pull some fancy tricks with header files and the like in this case, but you see my point). I think the class of "dependency problems", where you need the result from step 1 before you can do step 2, is going to turn out to be quite large.
On a practical level, as most of the software I have now doesn't take advantage of parallelism, I'm going to need new versions all round - probably involving significant cost - a multi-core processor won't provide instant gratification like a "faster" one would.
As for the analogy with the Ferrari, it was rather poor. My intention was to illustrate the point that people who go looking for the fastest product out there are being fobbed off with something other than what they actually wanted. In the Ferrari analogy it would be a case of "never mind the top speed, it's got cup holders. Ohh look, shiny!"...
While Moore's law refers to the number of transistors, the only reason it matters to the rest of us is because it has also mapped pretty well to speed. We've become accustomed to actual speed doubling every couple of years or so. And in this respect, the law seems to be in serious trouble.
So much so that Intel and AMD have had to resort to flogging multi-core chips, rather than actual faster chips.
I don't want more cores damnit, I want a faster chip. If I wanted more cores, I would have bought a cluster.
It's a major pain to try and parallelize existing algorithms, and for many it won't be possible at all. Not to mention the huge bulk of existing software that operates in a strictly linear fasion. No, this multi-core marketing offensive just doesn't cut it. How would you feel if you went to buy a top of the range Ferrari, only to be told that "well, it only does 100mph, but it does have two engines"?
The industry may still be adhering to the letter of the law, but the spirit appears to have departed.
Blimey, the knives seem to be out for Enterprise now. It's like some sort of anti-fanboy brigade or something. Do people think it's fashionable to knock Enterprise or something?
Yes the series had plenty of problems. Yes, there were plenty of lost opportunities to explore the implications of the absence of things like the universal translator and teleporter.
But compared to some of the utter shit that infests tv, was it really so bad? Worse than soap operas? Or reality tv? Or those pop idol things?
To those people who seem intent on shouting "good riddance" after it, were you strapped to a chair and forced to watch it or something?
Maybe it could have been better, but as one of the few shows to portray the future in a positive light, it provided me with a good few hours of undemanding light entertainment.
Err... that's the point. Wouldn't be much of a swimming pool otherwise, would it?
Besides, without liquid in the tank, you'd have to get hold of levitating fish, which I suspect would be even harder than finding simple freon-breathing ones.
Water cooling? Pah! Why not take a leaf out of Seymour Cray's book - build a sodding great swimming pool, fill it with non-conductive freon, then just lob the whole computer in.
Also has the added benefit that you can see at a glance which processors are working the hardest by looking to see which are producing the most bubbles.
Wonder if you could introduce fish into the tank and make a feature of it? If you could find any freon-breathing fish, that is...
You think you've got it bad? Here in the UK, they've only just finished showing season 4 of the West Wing, and season 5 is rumoured to be making an appearance in november. Possibly. If we ask nicely.
The eye needs constant movement to be able to keep updating what you are seeing.
Yes but, as no-one seems to have pointed out yet, surely it makes no difference whatsoever whether the target is moving, or if the creature whose eye we're talking about is moving - the changes on the retina are going to be pretty much identical.
About the only way this "don't move and it won't see you" scheme would work is with Douglas Adams's Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Trall - a creature so fantastically stupid that it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice summary of the problem with patent durations. As you say, they cannot be suited to all fields; the duration is too short for slow moving fields, yet too fast for rapidly advancing fields.
;)
So let me throw in a wild idea that just occurred to me (if it occurred to someone else previously, you should have patented it
The duration of a patent needs to vary according to the field it's awarded in. Short for computing and biotech, but long for piano-making. How to decide the different durations? Setting them artifically seems like it's going to be a really difficult issue. So how about turning the problem back upon itself.
Rapidly moving fields will have loads of patents filed in them, whereas slower developing fields will just have a trickle of patents.
So why not tie the duration of a patent to the number or rate of patents being awarded in that field? Create something like the stock market that's self regulating - as more people buy, the price goes up.
That way you automatically shorten the duration of patents in fast moving fields, while not adversely affecting developments in piano-building say.
Plus, it has the advantage that it may serve to deter the filing of frivolous patents, as anyone who did so would be shortening the duration of any other patents they held in that field. You could argue that this could be done deliberately, to shorten competitors' patents, but the company doing so would still need to come up with an invention of their own.
I'm sure that there are plenty of practical difficulties, such as determining the number of patents in a particular field, and what field a new patent applies to, but hey, it's just an idea.
One of the arguments against patenting software is that software is an expression of an algorithm. Algorithms can be considered a form of mathematics and there is philosophical debate over whether mathematics can be subject to innovation, or simply discovery
Ah yes, but can't you apply this to any kind of invention? If you devise a better mouse trap, then that better technique has always existed, and you're just the first to discover it.
Any new idea is arguably just the discovery of some technique that's always been possible. Why should mathematics be treated differently?
I'd argue that copyright doesn't provide enough protection for innovative techniques, since it only stops you from literally copying them, but leaves you free to re-implement them in your own words.
If I copy your source code, I'll get busted. But what about if I change all the variable names? Is that still a copy?
How about I substitute the for loops with while loops? And change the sorting algorithms. And implement it in a different language.
I'd argue that you've now managed to escape copyright whilst still essentially ripping off the original inventor.
Copyright doesn't provide for protection of the underlying idea - and that's the true innovation. The eureka moment - the "aha! if I build a table like so, and analyse the values like this, then I can..." process that's the core of the technique.
In contrast, a patent would protect the technique itself, so would seem more suitable for protecting the invention.
Obviously a patent on "compressing data" would be absurd, but wouldn't it be fair to grant a patent on that specific table-analysing technique?
The thing is, many of the arguments seem to be confusing 2 separate issues:
1) Should pure software be patentable?
2) Should the patent system be reformed?
Nearly all of the arguments I've seen, including the bullet points in the article you linked to, attack point 2. But there appear to be precious few arguments targetted specifically against point 1.
Don't get me wrong, I think that the patent system is in desperate need of reform, but all the fuss in the EU at the moment is over whether software should be patentable, and as such I think we need more and better arguments specifically against that.
I'm sure that many/most researchers do have a strong desire to benefit mankind with their inventions.
But human nature has shown that the amount of work people are prepared to do is linked pretty closely to the reward they can expect. If you're going to be paid the same whether you work 9 to 5, or really work your ass off, most people are going to do the least amount possible.
For the AI example, say you did invent it, and gave it away for the benefit of all mankind. Now Microsoft implements this AI in the next version of Windows and it becomes a huge selling point and makes them billions. Meanwhile, you make nothing (or worse, a pittance trouble-shooting the Windows implementation). Does that seem fair?
the innovation progress in the software field doesn't benefit from software patents...
I think what you mean is that software innovation seems to be doing OK without patents.
But that doesn't automatically exclude the possibility that there might be *even more* innovation if patents were introduced.
An example: people attack Microsoft for lack of innovation. Software like Office hasn't had any real innovation for years, if ever. But if MS *did* come up with something radically innovative in the next version of Office, it would also be implemented in OpenOffice the following week. So MS has no incentive to innovate. Whereas, with patents, MS would gain a real competitive advantage from their innovation.
Therefore software patents would produce more innovation?
To date I have been strongly against software patents, but now I'm starting to wonder. Is the problem with the patents themselves, or merely with the way that they are awarded?
Most people here seem to take it as read that "pure software" should not be patentable. But the "because it shouldn't" argument just isn't good enough, frankly. If we're going to argue effectively against software patents, then we need to back up our arguments with solid reasoning.
To that effect, I'm going to play Devil's advocate and set out the case *for* software patents. Please feel free to attack my reasoning, but only if you can provide valid reasoning of your own, not just "because I think so".
Let's take the example of the car braking system. People say that only the mechanical element of the system should be patentable, whereas the software should be excluded. But the mechanical part is just a few bits of metal, bolted together in much the same way that's been done for 100 years. All the real innovation in such a system is in the software, by far the most complex part of the system. It's here that most of the development effort was expended, and where most of the innovation took place.
Another example: the GIF patents. Sure they were a pain, but what sort of reason is that? Doesn't the invention of a new way to compress data justify reward? If you came up with a way to compress any data to 1% of its original size say, would you be happy to just give it away and get nothing for your efforts?
By witholding patents from pure software, you're effectively stating that there is no significant innovation in the field. That might come as a bit of a shock to many computer scientists. Say someone puts in a number of really late nights, and cracks computer vision. Or develops working AI. Or a significant breakthrough in untrained continuous speech recognition. Are they expected to just give away the answer for free? "It was amazing work, shame they couldn't afford to remain in the field"...
How about the argument that patents on algorithms will turn software development into a trip through a minefield? Well, say you're developing that new braking system. Who's to say that you won't stumble across a number of patents in the design of the mechanical aspects? So why should the software aspect be treated differently?
Couldn't the risk in software development actually be lower, because you could make use of libraries of known patent-free algorithms? Couldn't you even have tools that check if you likely to be infringing on any patents?
Most of the problems people have are with the way that patents are awarded (for obvious things), enforced (submarine patents), or abused (bankrupt you in court). The problem isn't with *software* patents, it's with *patents*. As such, software patents should be allowed, and reform of the patent system should be the priority. People are fighting the wrong battle here.
Well that's about it. Please attack!
Sony has stated repeatedly that they were aiming for a machine that was 1000 times more powerful than the PS2, and with talk of a 4 or 8 cell machine, it looked like they might come at least respectably close to that figure.
But now we find out that it's only 35 times quicker than a PS2? It's a fair advance obviously, but it's a hell of a long way short of what we were promised. So I suspect that, as with the PS2, all the talk of real-time photo realistic graphics will turn out to be just that; talk.
It's a nice machine, sure, but evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
I would have thought that a major reason why Morse code is quicker is that it has data compression built in - the more frequently used letters are shorter, while the less frequently used ones are longer.
Compare that with SMS, where "s" requires 4 button presses, and "e" takes 2.
So the SMS sender was effectively competing with someone sending a zipped version of the message.
Unlike SMS, Morse code was carefully designed for sending data as fast as possible, so it's hardly surprising that it does just that.
This is not a one time pad - the key is not the same length as the data in this scheme; the article points out that keys are only 256 bits long, obviously far less than the number of bits in a frame.
The "quantum cryptography" bit is only to stop you from intercepting the keys, in the same way that PGP doesn't apply public-key encryption to the whole message, only the keys to a symmetric cypher.
As such, the 256 bit keyspace is eminently brute forceable.
If it is possible to brute force one key, it is possible to brute force many keys.
Um, no. You might be able to brute force a single key, if you've got a supercomputer handy and a few months to spare. But brute forcing x keys will take x times as long.
With this technique, even if you did force a key, that'd only get you single lousy frame, which is a helluva lot more secure than the old way, where you would have gotten the whole stream. Now, to get the next frame, you've got to repeat the cracking process all over again.
that just the other day was reported as threatening people who posted screenshots of Longhorn?
Which is it to be? Do they want it publicised or not?
No, let me guess; only favourable publicity.
To those objecting to exchanging virtual goods for real money, please explain how money is any more "real" than the objects in this game. Money is just a concept; those pieces of paper don't have any intrinsic worth. Hell, even an amount of gold isn't instrinsically "worth" anything, except the price put on it by those who might wish to acquire it.
As for the objections that Sony can create new virtual goods from thin air - isn't this what Microsoft does every time they release a new software package? How is Office "real"?
Regarding the complaint that this system will favour the rich, isn't this already the case in that rich people can afford better PCs - ie: the advantage conferred in FPSs by higher frame rates.
And finally, to those worried about cheating or viruses, or crashes or whatever; since the vast majority of "real" money only exists electronically these days, the exact same issues are faced by banks, and they seem to do OK. It can be done right.
It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out. I wonder if they're going to have to make use of the same tools as in the "real" economy, such as controls of the interest rate and so forth.
Yeah, if you think popup ads are annoying now, just wait another 10 years until we have the technology whereby they leap out of the screen and slap you around the face with a dead haddock.
Man will that piss people off.
What a massive co-incidence that Dell threatened (again) to look at supplying AMD chips just days ago. Not.
I wonder if the threats did them any good, or if Intel have now got so used to the cries of wolf that they called Dell's bluff? Intel probably told Dell to shut the hell up or miss out on the launch.
You mean it's kinda fishy?
As many have said before on Slashdot, if companies like Sony (who already produce both MP3 players and car stereos) had any sense at all, they would come up with integrated systems where the MP3 player serves as the detachable faceplate for the car stereo.
Doing this kills two birds with one stone. When you're in the car, you get your whole music collection with you, and when you leave the car, you can take it all with you, leaving nothing of value in the car.
But as Sony has repeatedly shown, they haven't got a friggin' clue. This is the company that is *still* attempting to flog their bloody ATRAC format. How many people on the street have even heard of ATRAC, much less care what it is?
Sony, WAKE UP, get a clue, produce a "proper" MP3 player, and brand it "MP3 Walkman" so that the whole world knows what it is and what it does.
Isn't that just the same as with video recorders? First they tried to ban them, and when that failed, they figured out a way to use them to their advantage to make huge profits.
I did have to think a bit to come up with a class of problems that can't be parallelized, but I think I have it.
From your example of compiling the kernel; imagine if file A depends on file B. You have to deal with file B first, parallelism can't help. (Well, maybe you can pull some fancy tricks with header files and the like in this case, but you see my point). I think the class of "dependency problems", where you need the result from step 1 before you can do step 2, is going to turn out to be quite large.
On a practical level, as most of the software I have now doesn't take advantage of parallelism, I'm going to need new versions all round - probably involving significant cost - a multi-core processor won't provide instant gratification like a "faster" one would.
As for the analogy with the Ferrari, it was rather poor. My intention was to illustrate the point that people who go looking for the fastest product out there are being fobbed off with something other than what they actually wanted. In the Ferrari analogy it would be a case of "never mind the top speed, it's got cup holders. Ohh look, shiny!"...
While Moore's law refers to the number of transistors, the only reason it matters to the rest of us is because it has also mapped pretty well to speed. We've become accustomed to actual speed doubling every couple of years or so. And in this respect, the law seems to be in serious trouble.
So much so that Intel and AMD have had to resort to flogging multi-core chips, rather than actual faster chips.
I don't want more cores damnit, I want a faster chip. If I wanted more cores, I would have bought a cluster.
It's a major pain to try and parallelize existing algorithms, and for many it won't be possible at all. Not to mention the huge bulk of existing software that operates in a strictly linear fasion. No, this multi-core marketing offensive just doesn't cut it. How would you feel if you went to buy a top of the range Ferrari, only to be told that "well, it only does 100mph, but it does have two engines"?
The industry may still be adhering to the letter of the law, but the spirit appears to have departed.
Blimey, the knives seem to be out for Enterprise now. It's like some sort of anti-fanboy brigade or something. Do people think it's fashionable to knock Enterprise or something?
Yes the series had plenty of problems. Yes, there were plenty of lost opportunities to explore the implications of the absence of things like the universal translator and teleporter.
But compared to some of the utter shit that infests tv, was it really so bad? Worse than soap operas? Or reality tv? Or those pop idol things?
To those people who seem intent on shouting "good riddance" after it, were you strapped to a chair and forced to watch it or something?
Maybe it could have been better, but as one of the few shows to portray the future in a positive light, it provided me with a good few hours of undemanding light entertainment.
I for one will miss it.
Isn't freon liquid at room temperature?
Err... that's the point. Wouldn't be much of a swimming pool otherwise, would it?
Besides, without liquid in the tank, you'd have to get hold of levitating fish, which I suspect would be even harder than finding simple freon-breathing ones.
Water cooling? Pah! Why not take a leaf out of Seymour Cray's book - build a sodding great swimming pool, fill it with non-conductive freon, then just lob the whole computer in.
Also has the added benefit that you can see at a glance which processors are working the hardest by looking to see which are producing the most bubbles.
Wonder if you could introduce fish into the tank and make a feature of it? If you could find any freon-breathing fish, that is...
You think you've got it bad? Here in the UK, they've only just finished showing season 4 of the West Wing, and season 5 is rumoured to be making an appearance in november. Possibly. If we ask nicely.
The eye needs constant movement to be able to keep updating what you are seeing.
Yes but, as no-one seems to have pointed out yet, surely it makes no difference whatsoever whether the target is moving, or if the creature whose eye we're talking about is moving - the changes on the retina are going to be pretty much identical.
About the only way this "don't move and it won't see you" scheme would work is with Douglas Adams's Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Trall - a creature so fantastically stupid that it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you.