The way I see it, the only end-game is for advertisers to work closely with site owners so that ads are integrated with the content in such a way that software cannot distinguish the ads from the content.
Some kind of collaborative filtering will get rid of those ads...
How much does the software need to be modified until it is not covered by the covenant anymore? Or is that impossible? If so, they could just as well give up the patents... so I don't think that is the case. So at least it is some kind of trap.
Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.
I think that what Psystar was selling was a means (read: tool) to modify the OSX software. That is, modification is left as a final step to be performed by the end-user. Of course they sell that tool bundled with the OSX software.
- take a plastic pipe, drill in some holes - attach one end to a vacuum cleaner - mount the pipe on a structure capable of making the right movement (this is the most difficult part, but really not that hard)
of course, the holes in the pipe should be large enough to allow sufficient suction power to turn the pages; this takes some experimentation.
(yes, i know, this solution "sucks", but in a good way)
here's a warning: trackmenot can be easily detected (and filtered out) by google. right now, i believe trackmenot only issues requests to their search forms, without downloading the original search screen; that is a good sign for google that something out of the ordinary is happening. second, google can (in the future) do a lot with javascript for more sophisticated detection, like detecting the rate of keystrokes etc., to see if the user is human. Finally, google can just ban you from their services if they as much as smell that something fishy is going on.
in my opinion, both (all) companies should completely open up their search api's, so that browsers and perhaps other 3rdparty-websites can implement their own presentation logic.
if bing wants to gain some more users, they can start by doing that... i don't think anything else is going to help them much...
instead of using floating point for representing decimal numbers, one can of coarse easily use fixed point... for currency computations, just store every value multiplied by 100 and use some fancy printing routine to put the decimal point at the right position.
and if you're afraid that you might mix up floating point and fixed point numbers, just define a special type for the fixed-point numbers, and define corresponding overloaded operators... oh wait
I just watched some demos on YouTube, and it seemed much faster than 0.5s.
I tried some e-ink devices in a retail store, and although of course i didn't exactly measure the page refresh rate, i noticed that i could hit "next page" not faster than about every second. quite annoying if you want to jump more than a couple of pages ahead for example...
although some may disagree that vinyl is a step backwards in terms of sound quality, it is definitely a step backwards in terms of environmental impact. let's not forget about that!
but e-ink? seriously, switching a page takes something like 0.5-1 seconds, with the complete page flickering to black in the process... that is really not comfortable to look at. Further, when I'm reading something technical, I'd like to be able to zoom in, and scroll around (scroll to some figure, then scroll back to the text). With e-ink, smooth scrolling is not possible afaik... so no thanks (yet!)
the nook is a huge advancement (if only to allow PDF's), but the e-ink display is not for me. Switching pages is just too flickery, and the 0.5 second refresh time is way too long (check out the reviews on youtube and see what i mean)
If translation from source to ARM binary code is possible, then why isn't translation from x86 binary code to ARM binary code possible? I mean, most programming languages are much more complicated than the x86 instruction set, right?
Anyway, there's of course plenty of non-open-source stuff that runs under linux. It would be nice if it could be transferred to another platform. Same holds for (x86) windows apps by the way.
if we make access to the tools easier for game devs, we'll end up with better games... win-win so far as I can see.
I'm afraid that nintendo will just continue to make access for developers more difficult, but in a more obfuscated way, for example by creating an "undocumented" API, etc. Further, if I was developing software in this way, I would be constantly worried that nintendo would change some of the specs here and there, just for the purpose of bugging me and other "unregistered" developers. Everything considered, not a platform I would be happy to develop for.
I also have a problem with patents, especially with their expiration time.
However, this thread was about convincing somebody that there exist software patents which are actually ingenious, and that they are not all of the silly kind.
The fact that software == mathematics should have nothing to do with software's status of being patentable, as also argued in TFA.
As for your question, there is still a threshold (namely, cost) to patenting stuff, so I don't think it is realistic to ask where we would be when every invention had been patented. Also, a lot of patents are not enforceable (Taylor's invention was only a "proof" that the series converge). Further, for most such inventions, the patents would have expired already.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, the only end-game is for advertisers to work closely with site owners so that ads are integrated with the content in such a way that software cannot distinguish the ads from the content.
Some kind of collaborative filtering will get rid of those ads...
How much does the software need to be modified until it is not covered by the covenant anymore?
Or is that impossible?
If so, they could just as well give up the patents... so I don't think that is the case.
So at least it is some kind of trap.
well now that it is illegal, they might as well open source it...
Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.
I think that what Psystar was selling was a means (read: tool) to modify the OSX software. That is, modification is left as a final step to be performed by the end-user. Of course they sell that tool bundled with the OSX software.
as someone who listened to a lot of loud music, i like this idea
as an extension, i propose to do the same with cars. limit their speed.
you can make an automatic page-turner easily:
- take a plastic pipe, drill in some holes
- attach one end to a vacuum cleaner
- mount the pipe on a structure capable of making the right movement (this is the most difficult part, but really not that hard)
of course, the holes in the pipe should be large enough to allow sufficient suction power to turn the pages; this takes some experimentation.
(yes, i know, this solution "sucks", but in a good way)
Running your own email server isn't exactly hard as long as your ISP is willing to change your PTR record and give you a static IP.
but you'll have to trust your ISP and everybody else who is on the line...
in the meantime, i'll be waiting for mainstream encryption of e-mail to become a reality
(why is it taking so long?)
here's a warning: trackmenot can be easily detected (and filtered out) by google. right now, i believe trackmenot only issues requests to their search forms, without downloading the original search screen; that is a good sign for google that something out of the ordinary is happening. second, google can (in the future) do a lot with javascript for more sophisticated detection, like detecting the rate of keystrokes etc., to see if the user is human. Finally, google can just ban you from their services if they as much as smell that something fishy is going on.
shopping - so does Google
well, not on my version of google...
perhaps i'm alone in this, but especially when i'm at work, the word "shopping" on my search page just gives me the shivers...
in my opinion, both (all) companies should completely open up their search api's, so that browsers and perhaps other 3rdparty-websites can implement their own presentation logic.
if bing wants to gain some more users, they can start by doing that... i don't think anything else is going to help them much...
i'd be glad to make a switch, but there are some problems i have with bing:
Somehow looking at bing gives me the same feeling as looking at a typical domain-squatting site.
Why can't they just get it right?
41,000,000,000 ought to be enough for anybody!
(but please don't truncate my bank-account)
best regards,
Bill
Do you work for these guys?
No, but they can hire me... I'm already looking forward to the amount they'll put on my paycheck...
instead of using floating point for representing decimal numbers, one can of coarse easily use fixed point... for currency computations, just store every value multiplied by 100 and use some fancy printing routine to put the decimal point at the right position.
and if you're afraid that you might mix up floating point and fixed point numbers, just define a special type for the fixed-point numbers, and define corresponding overloaded operators... oh wait
so you actually have some dynamic range
you might want to read this
I just watched some demos on YouTube, and it seemed much faster than 0.5s.
I tried some e-ink devices in a retail store, and although of course i didn't exactly measure the page refresh rate, i noticed that i could hit "next page" not faster than about every second. quite annoying if you want to jump more than a couple of pages ahead for example...
although some may disagree that vinyl is a step backwards in terms of sound quality, it is definitely a step backwards in terms of environmental impact. let's not forget about that!
battery life i can understand
but e-ink? seriously, switching a page takes something like 0.5-1 seconds, with the complete page flickering to black in the process... that is really not comfortable to look at. Further, when I'm reading something technical, I'd like to be able to zoom in, and scroll around (scroll to some figure, then scroll back to the text). With e-ink, smooth scrolling is not possible afaik... so no thanks (yet!)
i want to add to that, that once the e-ink technology is capable of real-time scrolling, i might give it a try
the nook is a huge advancement (if only to allow PDF's), but the e-ink display is not for me. Switching pages is just too flickery, and the 0.5 second refresh time is way too long (check out the reviews on youtube and see what i mean)
If translation from source to ARM binary code is possible, then why isn't translation from x86 binary code to ARM binary code possible? I mean, most programming languages are much more complicated than the x86 instruction set, right?
Anyway, there's of course plenty of non-open-source stuff that runs under linux. It would be nice if it could be transferred to another platform. Same holds for (x86) windows apps by the way.
The performance overhead of binary translation from x86 to ARM would throttle your phone.
Ok, but you could perform a translation on your x86, before transferring the app to your phone, no?
So this will allow my intel-based linux applications to be run on an ARM based smartphone?
that would be cool...
if we make access to the tools easier for game devs, we'll end up with better games... win-win so far as I can see.
I'm afraid that nintendo will just continue to make access for developers more difficult, but in a more obfuscated way, for example by creating an "undocumented" API, etc. Further, if I was developing software in this way, I would be constantly worried that nintendo would change some of the specs here and there, just for the purpose of bugging me and other "unregistered" developers. Everything considered, not a platform I would be happy to develop for.
I also have a problem with patents, especially with their expiration time.
However, this thread was about convincing somebody that there exist software patents which are actually ingenious, and that they are not all of the silly kind.
The fact that software == mathematics should have nothing to do with software's status of being patentable, as also argued in TFA.
As for your question, there is still a threshold (namely, cost) to patenting stuff, so I don't think it is realistic to ask where we would be when every invention had been patented. Also, a lot of patents are not enforceable (Taylor's invention was only a "proof" that the series converge). Further, for most such inventions, the patents would have expired already.