No reason to get enraged... I'm actually quite happy they filed this patent. Now, in order for anyone to implement this "idea", they have to pay Phillips. This means the devices will cost more than the competition. Look at it this way: the only way someone will buy a device with this technology is if ALL the devices have this technology. By patenting it, Phillips is guaranteeing that there will be some manufacturers who will leave it out in order to cut costs and pick up customers. This in turn makes it deadweight technology for the companies that HAVE licensed it, as it will only reduce sales.
In fact, about the only places I can see this flying are hotel rooms and other locations where the people using the devices are not the ones who purchased them.
Sounds like you're a good candidate for this:
http://www.gnustep.org/information/mission.html
--as they say, due to Apple changing the Cocoa API all the time, it's not a 100% match, but any development work you do in GNUStep should be trivial to build in Cocoa.
There WERE NO DESKTOP APPLETS that RAN ON THE DESKTOP linked to LIVE data on the INTENET using HTML.PERIOD.
Seems to me that both of you are getting too caught up in what you are saying to see the big picture.
For instance, back in 1987, I was running a Desk Accessory (remember those?) that linked to live data shared over the localtalk network. A few, actually. Most were set and forget (clock synchronization, network printer management, etc.), but some were mildly scriptable. Not to mention, due to the wonderful way Resources worked, I could open up ResEdit to reconfigure the layout and functionality of the DAs themselves, just as HTML is used to change the look and feel of widgets.
It seems to me you're getting caught up in the labels, and missing the fact that the functionality has been around for years, and the ideas have been used in the exact same way, making use of new technology for implementation as they came along.
Of course, the GP needs to go back and do his homework, as you've pointed out:) the "Hyper" in HyperCard was in reference to Hypertext, not the other way around. Back in 1987, there were two scripting languages for the Macintosh System, one was MacroMaker, which worked by passing Apple Events (didn't work over the network), and the other (whose name I forget, but it started with an A I think) COULD actually build DAs that were custom scripted (the script went in the data fork) and was localtalk aware. HyperCard built "stacks" that ran within the HyperCard "OS" -- without MultiFinder though, you didn't even have a desktop; you launched HyperCard, and then opened your stack... other than DAs from the Apple menu, there was NO multitasking.
The point here (and what the GP was trying to say I think) is that the technology existed back then in rudimentary form, and the implementations and concepts also existed; at some point in the future, they were merged, as HTML/Javascript was seen as better for the job (more people knew those languages).
This is all that is needed for prior art; if I invented a new language, say Em's Markup Language, and implemented "gizmos" that were application-specific (they changed how they looked/what they did based on what process was frontmost at the time), and were able to communicate with live data over bluetooth from various peripherals around the home, I would NOT be creating something I would consider patentable... sure, I'm using EML for the first time, to link Bluetooth devices in an environment-dependent way, but it's really just a rehashing of widgets using new technology. Same thing applies to everything else here; most software development involves taking old ideas and extending them using new capabilities found in replacement technologies.
Of course, one of the other problems in your instance is the City of Richmond DMV scam a few years ago... there was a group working for ICBC/DMV that were selling driver's licenses to Chinese immigrants without requiring them to take a test. They got away with it for 8 years before they were caught. Add to that that the RCMP/city police DON'T do anything about "minor" infractions (like running a light) unless they're forced to (they've got their hands full with spousal abuse/grow ops/etc.) and you have the situation as it exists today.
Maybe it says more about your abilities as a pedestrian/cyclist? I have seen so many cocky pedestrians and cyclists throw themselves in front of cars just begging to get hit just because they have the right of way. If a car nearly hits me, I consider it my fault.
Ever notice you need a driver's license? You do not need a walking license or a biking license. Anyone driving a vehicle has to be able to handle these "cocky pedestrians" -- they're part of the environment drivers have to manouver through every day. If you don't plan for "cocky pedestrians and cyclists", you should have your license revocked, and spend some time being one of them.
On the other hand, I'm a paranoid pedestrian and I've given away my bike, as it's too dangerous to ride it where I live -- everyone I know who cycles regularly has been hit at least once, many sustaining multiple injuries that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Even as a paranoid pedestrian, I've been hit 4 times in the last 4 years -- once by a driver who was stopped at a stop sign, and floored it when I walked in front of their car, twice by people who were turning left at a stop sign, and never checked right to see if someone was crossing the crosswalk, and once by a priest who, after pulling into an alley behind a church, decided for some reason to back up onto the main road in a hurry without checking to see if there was someone on the sidewalk. Of course, due to being paranoid, all I've sustained from these instances is bruises.
Of course, the other thing about these instances is that apart from collision avoidance tech, no automated systems would have prevented the accidents; driving by the rules would have, however. In the above instances, this would mean: 1. don't stop out of habit; STOP INTENTIONALLY and LOOK before going; 2&3. ALWAYS look right before turning left; and 4. don't back out of an alleyway across a sidewalk onto the street.
This is true, but I can't help but think that a system like this might be crossing a line between technologies that make a car safer by adding a feature and those that make a car safer by removing a feature.
Hmm... tell me about seatbelts again... (I know... many people are upset with them for this exact reason).
The legislators like to drive their cars. Anyone with enough money or the right forms will be able to be "exempt" from any such legislation. Only the "poor" will have to drive fully automatic cars.
As the other respondant has noted, you don't need to install anything; it's already installed in OS X 10.3+; just open the preference pane and configure it.
Funny... I just bought 2 low end Dell boxes; both of them came with a paper "restore CD"... in other words, they came with no CD whatsoever; just a piece of paper saying that everything you need to restore your computer is hidden on an emergency partition that will boot if something goes wrong with the c: drive.
Microsoft already has an x86 emulator: it's called VirtualPC. They've used it in many different markets already; I'm sure they could make a custom build that would run old 9x and DOS games without much difficulty. VirtualPC was originally designed for the PPC chip and ported to x86 -- by Connectix, the same company that came out with Virtual GameStation, the Playstation emulator for PPC. Sony bought VGS because they couldn't sue it out of existence; Microsoft did the same thing with VirtualPC, because they saw a future need for virtualization within their OSes.
I'm sure they could buy an MSX emulator for peanuts.
This is why I talked about games *published* by MS -- stuff they created and sold. They even have games they've made for the NES, among other platforms. They can do what they want with their IP.
Just to play Devil's Advocate...
Microsoft could pull out all the titles it made for Win32, DOS, and the MSX and resell them; after all, it shouldn't be difficult for MS to emulate any of THOSE platforms (although they'd probably need an agreement with ASCII to resell the MSX stuff). MS actually HAS made quite a few games over the years.
Personally, I'd like to see OpenBSD become a sub-project of FreeBSD (think of it as the "secure" build). However, I don't see Theo allowing that anytime soon; his view of security by design differs too much from the FBSD project.
Well, I must say that I'm hooked on eText. The last five books I've read were all on my PalmPilot -- the reading software has come a long way. I can set bookmarks, write notes attached to paragraphs, adjust font size/brightness on the fly and flip to anywhere in the book based on % complere, chapter, keyword, or a number of other criteria. Because my Palm has WiFi access, I can auto-back-up my entire library to my home computer on the fly, as well as grab a new book from my computer/PG/etc. Whenever I open an eText, it's right where it was when I was last reading. The software also tells me how long I've been reading the book for (cumulatively, and for current session) and estimates how long it will take me to finish reading it.
The only real gripes I have with eBooks are to do with the delivery of content; most of the formats are DRM'd and only work in eReaders I don't own, and the publishers for some reason want to charge the same amount for eBooks as they do for first edition hardcover books... even when there's third printing paperbacks of the same book on the shelves in stores. I mean, come on! I can buy an audiobook of the same text for LESS than the eBook, and the AudioBook can be converted to a DRM-less format. The audiobook requires the exact same amount of time and energy to produce, PLUS it has to be printed in transcript form, PLUS someone has to sit down and read it, PLUS it needs a recording studio, and whatever background sound effects they decide to add (whether I want them or not).
Do they think that charging high prices for eBooks will offset piracy? I'd think it would do the opposite. It's more likely that one person will buy the book, split the cost with friends, and extract the text from the DRM.
I agree with the parent -- Dual booting isn't really much of an issue these days. However, DarWINE is something I'm interested in... being able to run the odd Windows app natively ON TOP of OS X with no need to leave OS X:D
Which is not true, that it really annoys him, that you get "withheld" numbers even after subscribing to Caller ID (you do), or that you can pay more to see those numbers (sort of true -- you also have to have a valid reason to see the number; usually this information is only given out to emergency services etc.)?
Sadly, not true. People routinely sue the poor to put them out of business. I'm sure you can figure out a number of reasons why someone would want to do this.
Everything has it's place. A four-minute piece is not a fucking expose. Sometimes to get anything done you have to take people on their word.
And to be a reputable journalist, you have to present their word, not "fact". As posted above, it's not too hard to rephrase the report so they report on what the police said, instead of stating the "fact" of what is happening.
Encryption should never be criminalized by any society that values privacy. Granted, this is a BBC piece and privacy is less valued in the UK than the US, so maybe he falls more in line with the norm there.
Funny, I think you'll find that privacy is more valued in the UK... that's why they have so many laws about it, and why privacy is so strictly controlled -- there are cameras and monitors, yes; but what gets done with that data is strictly regulated, unlike in the US where the same kinds of things are done but they don't even make the news, and there are very few laws to protect citizens against abuse of the data gained.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, about the only places I can see this flying are hotel rooms and other locations where the people using the devices are not the ones who purchased them.
Sounds like you're a good candidate for this: http://www.gnustep.org/information/mission.html --as they say, due to Apple changing the Cocoa API all the time, it's not a 100% match, but any development work you do in GNUStep should be trivial to build in Cocoa.
Seems to me that both of you are getting too caught up in what you are saying to see the big picture.
For instance, back in 1987, I was running a Desk Accessory (remember those?) that linked to live data shared over the localtalk network. A few, actually. Most were set and forget (clock synchronization, network printer management, etc.), but some were mildly scriptable. Not to mention, due to the wonderful way Resources worked, I could open up ResEdit to reconfigure the layout and functionality of the DAs themselves, just as HTML is used to change the look and feel of widgets.
It seems to me you're getting caught up in the labels, and missing the fact that the functionality has been around for years, and the ideas have been used in the exact same way, making use of new technology for implementation as they came along.
Of course, the GP needs to go back and do his homework, as you've pointed out :) the "Hyper" in HyperCard was in reference to Hypertext, not the other way around. Back in 1987, there were two scripting languages for the Macintosh System, one was MacroMaker, which worked by passing Apple Events (didn't work over the network), and the other (whose name I forget, but it started with an A I think) COULD actually build DAs that were custom scripted (the script went in the data fork) and was localtalk aware. HyperCard built "stacks" that ran within the HyperCard "OS" -- without MultiFinder though, you didn't even have a desktop; you launched HyperCard, and then opened your stack... other than DAs from the Apple menu, there was NO multitasking.
The point here (and what the GP was trying to say I think) is that the technology existed back then in rudimentary form, and the implementations and concepts also existed; at some point in the future, they were merged, as HTML/Javascript was seen as better for the job (more people knew those languages).
This is all that is needed for prior art; if I invented a new language, say Em's Markup Language, and implemented "gizmos" that were application-specific (they changed how they looked/what they did based on what process was frontmost at the time), and were able to communicate with live data over bluetooth from various peripherals around the home, I would NOT be creating something I would consider patentable... sure, I'm using EML for the first time, to link Bluetooth devices in an environment-dependent way, but it's really just a rehashing of widgets using new technology. Same thing applies to everything else here; most software development involves taking old ideas and extending them using new capabilities found in replacement technologies.
I see you were smart enough to stay anonymous on that comment :D
Of course, we don't really have to worry about burning fossil fuels, as it appears they'll all be gone within 50 years anyway :)
Of course, one of the other problems in your instance is the City of Richmond DMV scam a few years ago... there was a group working for ICBC/DMV that were selling driver's licenses to Chinese immigrants without requiring them to take a test. They got away with it for 8 years before they were caught. Add to that that the RCMP/city police DON'T do anything about "minor" infractions (like running a light) unless they're forced to (they've got their hands full with spousal abuse/grow ops/etc.) and you have the situation as it exists today.
Ever notice you need a driver's license? You do not need a walking license or a biking license. Anyone driving a vehicle has to be able to handle these "cocky pedestrians" -- they're part of the environment drivers have to manouver through every day. If you don't plan for "cocky pedestrians and cyclists", you should have your license revocked, and spend some time being one of them.
On the other hand, I'm a paranoid pedestrian and I've given away my bike, as it's too dangerous to ride it where I live -- everyone I know who cycles regularly has been hit at least once, many sustaining multiple injuries that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Even as a paranoid pedestrian, I've been hit 4 times in the last 4 years -- once by a driver who was stopped at a stop sign, and floored it when I walked in front of their car, twice by people who were turning left at a stop sign, and never checked right to see if someone was crossing the crosswalk, and once by a priest who, after pulling into an alley behind a church, decided for some reason to back up onto the main road in a hurry without checking to see if there was someone on the sidewalk. Of course, due to being paranoid, all I've sustained from these instances is bruises.
Of course, the other thing about these instances is that apart from collision avoidance tech, no automated systems would have prevented the accidents; driving by the rules would have, however. In the above instances, this would mean: 1. don't stop out of habit; STOP INTENTIONALLY and LOOK before going; 2&3. ALWAYS look right before turning left; and 4. don't back out of an alleyway across a sidewalk onto the street.
Hmm... tell me about seatbelts again... (I know... many people are upset with them for this exact reason).
Why?
The legislators like to drive their cars. Anyone with enough money or the right forms will be able to be "exempt" from any such legislation. Only the "poor" will have to drive fully automatic cars.
Hmm... hadn't heard of this... from the dependencies list, it appears like it should compile fine on OS X... anyone tried it?
As the other respondant has noted, you don't need to install anything; it's already installed in OS X 10.3+; just open the preference pane and configure it.
Makes me glad I have a site license....
I'm sure they could buy an MSX emulator for peanuts.
This is why I talked about games *published* by MS -- stuff they created and sold. They even have games they've made for the NES, among other platforms. They can do what they want with their IP.
Just to play Devil's Advocate...
Microsoft could pull out all the titles it made for Win32, DOS, and the MSX and resell them; after all, it shouldn't be difficult for MS to emulate any of THOSE platforms (although they'd probably need an agreement with ASCII to resell the MSX stuff). MS actually HAS made quite a few games over the years.
Personally, I'd like to see OpenBSD become a sub-project of FreeBSD (think of it as the "secure" build). However, I don't see Theo allowing that anytime soon; his view of security by design differs too much from the FBSD project.
Sounds an awful lot like Darwine.... Other links: http://darwine.opendarwin.org.nyud.net:8090/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/darwine/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwine http://freshmeat.net/projects/darwine/
The only real gripes I have with eBooks are to do with the delivery of content; most of the formats are DRM'd and only work in eReaders I don't own, and the publishers for some reason want to charge the same amount for eBooks as they do for first edition hardcover books... even when there's third printing paperbacks of the same book on the shelves in stores. I mean, come on! I can buy an audiobook of the same text for LESS than the eBook, and the AudioBook can be converted to a DRM-less format. The audiobook requires the exact same amount of time and energy to produce, PLUS it has to be printed in transcript form, PLUS someone has to sit down and read it, PLUS it needs a recording studio, and whatever background sound effects they decide to add (whether I want them or not).
Do they think that charging high prices for eBooks will offset piracy? I'd think it would do the opposite. It's more likely that one person will buy the book, split the cost with friends, and extract the text from the DRM.
I agree with the parent -- Dual booting isn't really much of an issue these days. However, DarWINE is something I'm interested in... being able to run the odd Windows app natively ON TOP of OS X with no need to leave OS X :D
Hey! This could be great news! They say they'll soon be supporting Media Access Control devices! (Or was that Message Authentication Code devices?)
Which is not true, that it really annoys him, that you get "withheld" numbers even after subscribing to Caller ID (you do), or that you can pay more to see those numbers (sort of true -- you also have to have a valid reason to see the number; usually this information is only given out to emergency services etc.)?
Sadly, not true. People routinely sue the poor to put them out of business. I'm sure you can figure out a number of reasons why someone would want to do this.
Change Elephants to Whales and petunias and you might be on to something ;)
Use 7zip, bzip2 or rar to compress the file -- that should be all you need to do.
And to be a reputable journalist, you have to present their word, not "fact". As posted above, it's not too hard to rephrase the report so they report on what the police said, instead of stating the "fact" of what is happening.
Encryption should never be criminalized by any society that values privacy. Granted, this is a BBC piece and privacy is less valued in the UK than the US, so maybe he falls more in line with the norm there.
Funny, I think you'll find that privacy is more valued in the UK... that's why they have so many laws about it, and why privacy is so strictly controlled -- there are cameras and monitors, yes; but what gets done with that data is strictly regulated, unlike in the US where the same kinds of things are done but they don't even make the news, and there are very few laws to protect citizens against abuse of the data gained.