I just bought *two* $80 Honeywell programmable thermostats that are hardwired to keep track of the date/year and automatically adjust for daylight savings time according to the current DST rules. It would suck ass if they rendered the damn things obsolete with the stroke of a pen.
What's the point of all this? No matter how you mess around with the DST, you won't get a single minute of daylight that you didn't have before.
Amen, brother! Trying to "save daylight" by messing with the clocks is like trying to make yourself taller by cutting off your head and standing on it.
you can't build a computer if state information is going to evaportate in a second or less.
Why not? DRAM state information evaporates much quicker, which is why there is DRAM refresh circuitry that cycles through it, reading each byte and writing it back out. Why can't the same thing be done for quantum memory.
IANAQP, so I apologize if this is a dumb question.
You're contradicting yourself. First of all, if it's a change of substance (i.e. chemical/molecular makeup) then the word literal is appropriate. As to changing form, I've never seen it change form. It's a beige circular wafer before and after, and the blood is still a red thin liquid, which somehow manages to trick my taste buds into thinking its wine.
Perhaps, but not everyone feels the same way as you do about computer games. My wife's two favorite computer games have both been free web-based games. One involved launching a football at Marcia Brady's face ("Oh! My nose!"), and the other involved catching babies dropped from a balcony by Michael Jackson.
I sincerely doubt that the workers in China are getting the same wages and benefits that American workers would get.
Well, duh. That's their compenitive advantage. That's why we want to use their labor. And it doesn't matter that they're not getting the same wages and benefits as US workers would get. All that matters is whether they're getting more wages and benefits than they would get if we weren't buying those goods from them.
Unless you believe that the Chinese population is too small (!) to meet all the internal labor demands, we're creating jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.
This one's too easy to disprove. Whatever digit 1782^12 ends in, it ends in the same digit that 1922^12 ends in, since each base ends in a "2". That means the difference between the two must be a number ending in "0". But 1841^12 clearly ends in a "1".
NASA actually sent them a printout of all 40,000 digits
I'm shocked that the Simpsons writers not only knew that there *was* a last digit, but also knew that the last one was the 40,000th. Even *I* didn't know that! They must've had some help. They must have some Ph.D. mathematicians working on the writing staff. Or maybe one of them is related to a math professor.
I think the Zebra already proves that. Sharp black and white stripes in a fuzzy green and brown jungle? WTF did the world look like when these things were evolving? And how do they manage to survive today?
1) Copyrights protect creative expressions, but software isn't a creative expression, it's a technical implementation
False dichotomy. Software has to be created. It doesn't create itself or grow on trees. It requires brain work, just like the creation of physical devices. If you don't think software is a creative expression, then what about newspaper articles? Text books? Can any work of non-fiction really be construed as creative? Should newspapers, magazines, and textbooks not receive copyright protection?
2) A technical implementation is a method. Methods can be patented. So patent the method of implementing an algorithm, not the algorithm itself.
A technical implementation is a method only insofar as at is an instantiation of a method identified in the abstract as an algorithm. By your line of reasoning, only the specific physical device created by a physical patent holder should be patentable, and I should be able to build it out of aluminum instead of iron, or change the shape of the chassis, and not be liable for patent infringement.
If you're not preventing anyone from writing their own implementation, then you're missing the point of the patent, which is to provide a return on the investment of the difficult part of the process, which is the creation of the algorithm, not translating it to computer code, which any undergrad can do.
You have the idea for some incredibly innovative kind of windshield wiper. Okay. You now have an idea. What you don't have is a windshield wiper.
You're not being clear on what you mean by an "idea". If you have a description of what you want it to do, then that's just a specification, i.e. a glorified wish-list. If you have a *design* for something that wipes windshields better than any that have come before, then that *design* is the hard part, and it's completely intangible. The manufacturing process from that point is trivial, and surely you wouldn't suggest that it is the pouring of plastic into a mold that makes this thing patentable.
With a software program the difference between an idea and an implementation is so negligable you can barely define it.
Well, I wouldn't go so far. A well-crafted implementation of an algorithm expressed at a very high level can be a significant undertaking. But be that as it may, you've just explained why it is the algorithm that is patentable, and not a particular implementation.
Patents are necessary for physical inventions because the most innovative inventors in that area can often be working in fields where it takes tremendous amounts of resources to create an implementation-- if you come up with a great idea for a scanning electron microscope, but you don't have a benefactor to build it for you, you're screwed,
This is completely false. Patents don't exist to help cover manufacturing costs. They exist to protect the investment of time required to figure out how to solve a particular real-world problem.
Almost all important computer science developments ever to happen occurred without the aid of patents
1) So have all the most important physical inventions: the transistor, the microprocessor, penicillin, pasteurization, etc. 2) See SIGGRAPH's recent publication of the 50 seminal papers in computer graphics for a description of the Marching Cubes algorithm, used in medical imaging, and whose patent expires this year.
Best argument I've heard so far, but it needs to be backed up a bit: Given the (relative) absence of direct manufacturing costs to software (i.e. it doesn't cost more to reproduce a copy of a compled algorithm than it does to reproduce a copy of random data), there are no entry barriers that would slow a competitor down from reaping the rewards from your software-implemented invention. Thus, it isn't clear that patents are not necessary. On the contrary, it would seem that they are more necessary.
Your argument about doing more to discourage than to promote is a good one. But I submit that is more because of the poor quality (obviousness and/or lack of novelty) than the mere fact that the operation is governed by the laws of mathematics and logic rather than the laws of physics.
I for one think the idea of protecting the processing of data is abhorent and against the basic fundamentals of freedom of expression
And why isn't the idea of protecting the building of a device just as abhorrent? Keeping me from cutting pieces of metal into particular shapes and attaching them with nuts and bolts is a violation of my freedom of expression.
I ask you if you believe light processing (film patents) and audio processing (music patents) should also be treated the same way?
Sure, if you invent a film that can be developed 10 times as fast, or come up with a device that creates sounds that nobody has ever heard before, then yes.
Should I have been allowed to patent the process of displaying an image on a screen in monochrome except for allowing certain areas (perhaps chosen by original colour) to feature one or more other chromatic values?
Too vague. There is already prior art for displaying mostly monochrome images on screens. What's the problem you're claiming to have solved, and what's your innovative method for solving it.
Whereas other inventions are merely "physics", or even "thinking". After all, I can imagine the gears turning, or the electromagnetic field fluctuating. Doing so can't possibly be a violation of anyone's right, And surely, building it and letting the laws of physics govern its natural operations is certainly not patentable either, since it's behaving according to laws that God put in place at the beginning of time.
No software patents. Period. They are already protected under copyright law.
No, they're not. Implementations are protected under copyright law. Patents are supposed to protect truly innovative methods of solving some particular problem, and I see no reason why those involving physics or mechanical engineering are more deserving than those involving information processing. The problem isn't software patents. The problem is stupid patents, whether they be one-click shopping (software), or swinging on a swing sideways (hardware).
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I'll admit that the last console I owned was the N64, so I'm behind the times,
Compared to me, you're on the bleeding edge. My last console was a Magnavox Odyssey 2. No, I'm not kidding.
So how about we just skip the posting on this article, and move on to the next?
Sure, as soon as you compare someone to Hitler.
I just bought *two* $80 Honeywell programmable thermostats that are hardwired to keep track of the date/year and automatically adjust for daylight savings time according to the current DST rules. It would suck ass if they rendered the damn things obsolete with the stroke of a pen.
What's the point of all this? No matter how you mess around with the DST, you won't get a single minute of daylight that you didn't have before.
Amen, brother! Trying to "save daylight" by messing with the clocks is like trying to make yourself taller by cutting off your head and standing on it.
Don't worry. Current trends suggest there won't be much wool left to go around.
you can't build a computer if state information is going to evaportate in a second or less.
Why not? DRAM state information evaporates much quicker, which is why there is DRAM refresh circuitry that cycles through it, reading each byte and writing it back out. Why can't the same thing be done for quantum memory.
IANAQP, so I apologize if this is a dumb question.
Is this come kind of joke?
It must be:
32. Defendant slashdot.org is an far-right wing Internet news website [...]
You're contradicting yourself. First of all, if it's a change of substance (i.e. chemical/molecular makeup) then the word literal is appropriate. As to changing form, I've never seen it change form. It's a beige circular wafer before and after, and the blood is still a red thin liquid, which somehow manages to trick my taste buds into thinking its wine.
Um, no. The term is "transubstantiation", meaning a change of substance. As I was taught, the assertion is quite literal.
He didn't say it was like Ford catching Ferrari. He said it was like a Ford catching a Ferrari. But you knew that. Troll.
Perhaps, but not everyone feels the same way as you do about computer games. My wife's two favorite computer games have both been free web-based games. One involved launching a football at Marcia Brady's face ("Oh! My nose!"), and the other involved catching babies dropped from a balcony by Michael Jackson.
Does this fix the crash with large streched images?
ie width=9999999 height=999999 in an
Apparently, even talking about the problem crashes this guy's browser.
I sincerely doubt that the workers in China are getting the same wages and benefits that American workers would get.
Well, duh. That's their compenitive advantage. That's why we want to use their labor. And it doesn't matter that they're not getting the same wages and benefits as US workers would get. All that matters is whether they're getting more wages and benefits than they would get if we weren't buying those goods from them.
Unless you believe that the Chinese population is too small (!) to meet all the internal labor demands, we're creating jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Third graders at Columbia University's elementary school
Columbia University has an elementary school?
Didn't he know it's just "74" on the speeddial?
(Look at a phone keypad)
1782^12 + 1841^12 =1922^12
This one's too easy to disprove. Whatever digit 1782^12 ends in, it ends in the same digit that 1922^12 ends in, since each base ends in a "2". That means the difference between the two must be a number ending in "0". But 1841^12 clearly ends in a "1".
NASA actually sent them a printout of all 40,000 digits
I'm shocked that the Simpsons writers not only knew that there *was* a last digit, but also knew that the last one was the 40,000th. Even *I* didn't know that! They must've had some help. They must have some Ph.D. mathematicians working on the writing staff. Or maybe one of them is related to a math professor.
Or maybe I'm just rationalizing.
I think the Zebra already proves that. Sharp black and white stripes in a fuzzy green and brown jungle? WTF did the world look like when these things were evolving? And how do they manage to survive today?
1) Copyrights protect creative expressions, but software isn't a creative expression, it's a technical implementation
False dichotomy. Software has to be created. It doesn't create itself or grow on trees. It requires brain work, just like the creation of physical devices. If you don't think software is a creative expression, then what about newspaper articles? Text books? Can any work of non-fiction really be construed as creative? Should newspapers, magazines, and textbooks not receive copyright protection?
2) A technical implementation is a method. Methods can be patented. So patent the method of implementing an algorithm, not the algorithm itself.
A technical implementation is a method only insofar as at is an instantiation of a method identified in the abstract as an algorithm. By your line of reasoning, only the specific physical device created by a physical patent holder should be patentable, and I should be able to build it out of aluminum instead of iron, or change the shape of the chassis, and not be liable for patent infringement.
If you're not preventing anyone from writing their own implementation, then you're missing the point of the patent, which is to provide a return on the investment of the difficult part of the process, which is the creation of the algorithm, not translating it to computer code, which any undergrad can do.
You have the idea for some incredibly innovative kind of windshield wiper. Okay. You now have an idea. What you don't have is a windshield wiper.
You're not being clear on what you mean by an "idea". If you have a description of what you want it to do, then that's just a specification, i.e. a glorified wish-list. If you have a *design* for something that wipes windshields better than any that have come before, then that *design* is the hard part, and it's completely intangible. The manufacturing process from that point is trivial, and surely you wouldn't suggest that it is the pouring of plastic into a mold that makes this thing patentable.
With a software program the difference between an idea and an implementation is so negligable you can barely define it.
Well, I wouldn't go so far. A well-crafted implementation of an algorithm expressed at a very high level can be a significant undertaking. But be that as it may, you've just explained why it is the algorithm that is patentable, and not a particular implementation.
Patents are necessary for physical inventions because the most innovative inventors in that area can often be working in fields where it takes tremendous amounts of resources to create an implementation-- if you come up with a great idea for a scanning electron microscope, but you don't have a benefactor to build it for you, you're screwed,
This is completely false. Patents don't exist to help cover manufacturing costs. They exist to protect the investment of time required to figure out how to solve a particular real-world problem.
Almost all important computer science developments ever to happen occurred without the aid of patents
1) So have all the most important physical inventions: the transistor, the microprocessor, penicillin, pasteurization, etc.
2) See SIGGRAPH's recent publication of the 50 seminal papers in computer graphics for a description of the Marching Cubes algorithm, used in medical imaging, and whose patent expires this year.
Best argument I've heard so far, but it needs to be backed up a bit: Given the (relative) absence of direct manufacturing costs to software (i.e. it doesn't cost more to reproduce a copy of a compled algorithm than it does to reproduce a copy of random data), there are no entry barriers that would slow a competitor down from reaping the rewards from your software-implemented invention. Thus, it isn't clear that patents are not necessary. On the contrary, it would seem that they are more necessary.
Your argument about doing more to discourage than to promote is a good one. But I submit that is more because of the poor quality (obviousness and/or lack of novelty) than the mere fact that the operation is governed by the laws of mathematics and logic rather than the laws of physics.
I for one think the idea of protecting the processing of data is abhorent and against the basic fundamentals of freedom of expression
And why isn't the idea of protecting the building of a device just as abhorrent? Keeping me from cutting pieces of metal into particular shapes and attaching them with nuts and bolts is a violation of my freedom of expression.
I ask you if you believe light processing (film patents) and audio processing (music patents) should also be treated the same way?
Sure, if you invent a film that can be developed 10 times as fast, or come up with a device that creates sounds that nobody has ever heard before, then yes.
Should I have been allowed to patent the process of displaying an image on a screen in monochrome except for allowing certain areas (perhaps chosen by original colour) to feature one or more other chromatic values?
Too vague. There is already prior art for displaying mostly monochrome images on screens. What's the problem you're claiming to have solved, and what's your innovative method for solving it.
Also known as "math", or even "thinking".
Whereas other inventions are merely "physics", or even "thinking". After all, I can imagine the gears turning, or the electromagnetic field fluctuating. Doing so can't possibly be a violation of anyone's right, And surely, building it and letting the laws of physics govern its natural operations is certainly not patentable either, since it's behaving according to laws that God put in place at the beginning of time.
No software patents. Period. They are already protected under copyright law.
No, they're not. Implementations are protected under copyright law. Patents are supposed to protect truly innovative methods of solving some particular problem, and I see no reason why those involving physics or mechanical engineering are more deserving than those involving information processing. The problem isn't software patents. The problem is stupid patents, whether they be one-click shopping (software), or swinging on a swing sideways (hardware).
Saturday will be in Beta 18 months.
Now, THAT'S my idea of a long weekend!