But will "sound" as vision be tolerable over the long term? Imagine having to listen to non-stop sounds/music your entire waking hours in a day. That's bound to cause earache and sound weariness.
No, Shockley invented the silicon transistor and Gordon Moore founded Intel. The microprocessor was invented by accident:
In late 1969, a potential client from Japan called Busicom, asked to have twelve custom chips designed. Separate chips for keyboard scanning, display control, printer control and other functions for a Busicom-manufactured calculator.
Intel did not have the manpower for the job but they did have the brainpower to come up with a solution. Intel engineer, Ted Hoff decided that Intel could build one chip to do the work of twelve. Intel and Busicom agreed and funded the new programmable, general-purpose logic chip.
Federico Faggin headed the design team along with Ted Hoff and Stanley Mazor, who wrote the software for the new chip. Nine months later, a revolution was born. At 1/8th inch wide by 1/6th inch long and consisting of 2,300 MOS (metal oxide semiconductor) transistors, the baby chip had as much power as the ENIAC, which had filled 3,000 cubic feet with 18,000 vacuum tubes.
If you invent something you are discovering a configuration of the world around us. You are rearranging atoms into some useful form...
Umm, if you do the rearranging, it's creation (or invention if you were the first to do the rearranging), not discovery. Invention is man-made, artificial, and not found in nature. Discovery is finding something that already exists in this world, you did not create it or shape it. For eg, "you found (discovered) a bird with eight wings in your backyard." You didn't create the bird yourself, God did that. You just found it.
material patents, were restricted only to the specific implementation presented and could be bypassed by relatively trivial alternate implementations that would be less of a problem,
Any patent that can be easily bypassed is a poor patent. Design patents are meant to be easily bypassed, utility patents are not.
But they are instead routinely granted not for the implementation, but for the final observable result, and thus preclude any possibility of alternate implementations, stalling virtually all competitive technological progress
The whole point of a patent is to stop alternate implementations temporarily so the owner of the patent can make handsome monopoly profits, which in turn provides incentive for other inventors to file for patents. No profits means no patents and therefore no innovation. But you're right, that patents should be limited to methods that achieve a result, not the result itself, generally speaking. But what about such patents where the result itself is truly innovative (eg: a new GUI widget) but the method to create the result is trivial. In such cases, the end result should get patent protection.
Software in and of itself is nothing but written mathematics.
False, software uses mathematics and is more than math. Software is a real machine built from 1s and 0s; math is a set of abstract concepts. Software requires hardware to execute it. Math is abstract and can be applied in numerous scenarios, not just hardware.
Math-like languages are used in many fields. Does this mean none of the products they create are patentable? For eg, all modern digital circuits are designed using VHDL/Verilog. VHDL's syntax resembles Ada/Pascal while Verilog's resembles C. Are you implying none of the digital hardware sold today is patentable because it's math?
No, you are the one that can't see the connection. Wood/Stone/mud mechanisms -- ancient technology. Then came metal machines, then plastics, then electronics hardware, then digital electronics hardware, then software. At each, step the technology platform is faster and/or powerful and/or cheaper. But in essence it's the same thing -- machines that do stuff and are patentable.
A machine built using plastic and metals is patentable and a digital circuit using gates (machine) is patentable. However, according to the FSF and OSS supporters, the same machine built using software pieces is somehow not patentable. That's just complete rubbish. Machines can perform actual tasks. Whereas, discoveries like math, are abstract and cannot do anything.
Why is non-GPL code prohibited from linking to GPLed code? Linking (i.e. using) does not restrict the freedom of the GPLed code. People who accidentally link their non-GPL code to GPL code risk converting their (often proprietary) code to GPL.
In summary, all types of free software (like BSD) and commercial software should be able to link to GPLed code without affecting their license. They should also be able to redistribute the GPL code provided it is used as-is and not modified (or the modifications published).
Exactly, the govt needs to have a quota, like H1B, that limits the number of jobs that can be outsourced to a different country. The business folks are always going to outsource everything as long it increases profit by 2x to 5x.
Or more likely, lack of competition. The dl speed increases at a glacial pace because there are only 1 to 3 decent internet providers in any city. Why invest in improvements when you can make money doing nothing new?
Bringing highly useful and fun-to-use technologies in well-designed (albeit expensive) packages - Mac OS and the iPhone. What type of phones were Nokia, Motorola, Blackberry and Samsung selling before Apple reinvented the mobile phone? Pre-iPhones were crappy, slow, plastic case phones with tiny screens and very tiny buttons that make even the simplest task look like trying to program a VCR.
Also, Apple was dying before Jobs saved it by introducing OS X. The man had great taste in design.
The problem is not many people, outside of hardware/software geeks, know who Dennis Ritchie and the rest are. Everyone knows who Jobs was and what he did.
Recursion is lazy, stupid, and above all, DANGEROUS.
Sorry, recursion is very useful. The non-recursive version is often far more complex, and therefore more bug prone.
Due to recursion overwriting critical data past the end of the stack and into the real time operating system memory area,...
That's very poor architecture. Why don't they use protected memory OS/CPU that isolates OS and app? A $100 smartphone has these features, why doesn't a car worth over $20,000 have it?
At the top tier (VP, Pres, CxO), pay should be capped as some (documented) multiplier of the lowest level salary.
Why are these idiotic and evil-commie statements modded up? The lowest level salary employee works for the CEO, not the other way around. Why do you insist on making a relationship between salaries of high-tier management and low-level manual labour? This is equivalent to saying, "all SQL programmers should be paid 15 times the amount they spend on grocery." How is that fair to developers who consume less food? Shouldn't the salary be based on performance and market demand instead?
Invasion of privacy? Also, we don't want to give them an excuse to track cars just as Google uses the excuse of rummaging thru your email to show ads, when in reality, who knows what else it does with your email?
... because you are able to demonstrate you did not have actual knowledge of the copyrighted material, and hence could not have copied it.
Clean room is about cloning/copying a technological product without copyright infringement. But you do have actual knowledge of the product, but at a higher level, not the exact competitor's source code.
Typically, a clean room design is done by having someone examine the system to be reimplemented and having this person write a specification. This specification is then reviewed by a lawyer to ensure that no copyrighted material is included. The specification is then implemented by a team with no connection to the original examiners.
A group of developers reverse engineer the competitor's product, then write a specification and pseudo code about how it works. Once they get the okay from the legal dept, they throw the spec and pseudo code over the "chinese wall" to the developers that turn them into their own code.
Fine, support both classic and beta and ask users to choose which one they want as default. Betcha, over 90% would choose classic.
IMO, beta is crap and needs to scrapped. What is needed is enhancements to slashdot design, not a complete overhaul.
BTW, today's google homepage seems to be just an enhancement of its 1998 design, not a complete redesign like beta. Google homepage just uses modern sanserif typefaces today (instead of serif fonts in 1998). The page layout is the same as 1998. The logo is the same but improved using photoshop. The ugly green background table at the bottom is gone -- that's the only change.
Well, they're severely abusing their authority. Product design should be based on consumer needs/desires. Owners should mainly care about profits.
Nobody is forced to use Slashdot.
There are many products/services that are not required, but are convenient. As an analogy, cars are not required. Everyone could walk, bike, take a bus or train.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Google pay over a billion to buy YouTube?
But will "sound" as vision be tolerable over the long term? Imagine having to listen to non-stop sounds/music your entire waking hours in a day. That's bound to cause earache and sound weariness.
Umm, if you do the rearranging, it's creation (or invention if you were the first to do the rearranging), not discovery. Invention is man-made, artificial, and not found in nature. Discovery is finding something that already exists in this world, you did not create it or shape it. For eg, "you found (discovered) a bird with eight wings in your backyard." You didn't create the bird yourself, God did that. You just found it.
Any patent that can be easily bypassed is a poor patent. Design patents are meant to be easily bypassed, utility patents are not.
The whole point of a patent is to stop alternate implementations temporarily so the owner of the patent can make handsome monopoly profits, which in turn provides incentive for other inventors to file for patents. No profits means no patents and therefore no innovation. But you're right, that patents should be limited to methods that achieve a result, not the result itself, generally speaking. But what about such patents where the result itself is truly innovative (eg: a new GUI widget) but the method to create the result is trivial. In such cases, the end result should get patent protection.
False, software uses mathematics and is more than math. Software is a real machine built from 1s and 0s; math is a set of abstract concepts. Software requires hardware to execute it. Math is abstract and can be applied in numerous scenarios, not just hardware.
Math-like languages are used in many fields. Does this mean none of the products they create are patentable? For eg, all modern digital circuits are designed using VHDL/Verilog. VHDL's syntax resembles Ada/Pascal while Verilog's resembles C. Are you implying none of the digital hardware sold today is patentable because it's math?
No, you are the one that can't see the connection. Wood/Stone/mud mechanisms -- ancient technology. Then came metal machines, then plastics, then electronics hardware, then digital electronics hardware, then software. At each, step the technology platform is faster and/or powerful and/or cheaper. But in essence it's the same thing -- machines that do stuff and are patentable.
A machine built using plastic and metals is patentable and a digital circuit using gates (machine) is patentable. However, according to the FSF and OSS supporters, the same machine built using software pieces is somehow not patentable. That's just complete rubbish. Machines can perform actual tasks. Whereas, discoveries like math, are abstract and cannot do anything.
You'll understand why if you play one of the clones (use 'flappy' as search term in your app store) like 'iron pants'.
Hint: it's really hard to get even a score of '1' (pass a pipe without crashing). Raging after a few losses is quite common.
What problems does bitcoin solve that cash, credit cards and checks (cheques) don't solve? Why do we need it?
Why is non-GPL code prohibited from linking to GPLed code? Linking (i.e. using) does not restrict the freedom of the GPLed code. People who accidentally link their non-GPL code to GPL code risk converting their (often proprietary) code to GPL.
In summary, all types of free software (like BSD) and commercial software should be able to link to GPLed code without affecting their license. They should also be able to redistribute the GPL code provided it is used as-is and not modified (or the modifications published).
They paid for the number of users. Search the web, they paid 16x10^9 / 450x10^6 = $36/user. Not an unreasonable deal.
Mobile carries have been milking customers for years for SMS because they didn't have much choice. Now, users have a cheaper alternative.
Exactly, the govt needs to have a quota, like H1B, that limits the number of jobs that can be outsourced to a different country. The business folks are always going to outsource everything as long it increases profit by 2x to 5x.
Or more likely, lack of competition. The dl speed increases at a glacial pace because there are only 1 to 3 decent internet providers in any city. Why invest in improvements when you can make money doing nothing new?
Bringing highly useful and fun-to-use technologies in well-designed (albeit expensive) packages - Mac OS and the iPhone. What type of phones were Nokia, Motorola, Blackberry and Samsung selling before Apple reinvented the mobile phone? Pre-iPhones were crappy, slow, plastic case phones with tiny screens and very tiny buttons that make even the simplest task look like trying to program a VCR.
Also, Apple was dying before Jobs saved it by introducing OS X. The man had great taste in design.
The problem is not many people, outside of hardware/software geeks, know who Dennis Ritchie and the rest are. Everyone knows who Jobs was and what he did.
Sorry, recursion is very useful. The non-recursive version is often far more complex, and therefore more bug prone.
That's very poor architecture. Why don't they use protected memory OS/CPU that isolates OS and app? A $100 smartphone has these features, why doesn't a car worth over $20,000 have it?
Why are these idiotic and evil-commie statements modded up? The lowest level salary employee works for the CEO, not the other way around. Why do you insist on making a relationship between salaries of high-tier management and low-level manual labour? This is equivalent to saying, "all SQL programmers should be paid 15 times the amount they spend on grocery." How is that fair to developers who consume less food? Shouldn't the salary be based on performance and market demand instead?
Invasion of privacy? Also, we don't want to give them an excuse to track cars just as Google uses the excuse of rummaging thru your email to show ads, when in reality, who knows what else it does with your email?
Clean room is about cloning/copying a technological product without copyright infringement. But you do have actual knowledge of the product, but at a higher level, not the exact competitor's source code.
According to wikipedia:
A group of developers reverse engineer the competitor's product, then write a specification and pseudo code about how it works. Once they get the okay from the legal dept, they throw the spec and pseudo code over the "chinese wall" to the developers that turn them into their own code.
Fine, support both classic and beta and ask users to choose which one they want as default. Betcha, over 90% would choose classic.
IMO, beta is crap and needs to scrapped. What is needed is enhancements to slashdot design, not a complete overhaul.
BTW, today's google homepage seems to be just an enhancement of its 1998 design, not a complete redesign like beta. Google homepage just uses modern sanserif typefaces today (instead of serif fonts in 1998). The page layout is the same as 1998. The logo is the same but improved using photoshop. The ugly green background table at the bottom is gone -- that's the only change.
This is like the command line GUI. It requires memorizing how many fingers to which function. It's a terrible idea for non-computer geeks.
Why not? It depends on the probability that one monkey typing for one year can produce Shakespeare.
Summary of article: Consider improbable event X. Repeat event X numerous times (10s, hundreds, thousands etc). Suddenly, event X is quite probable.
There are many products/services that are not required, but are convenient. As an analogy, cars are not required. Everyone could walk, bike, take a bus or train.