I'm not convinced that any sort of software algorithm should be patentable, but if we are going to allow patents on some narrowly-defined "implementations," which might involve software at some point in them (but not being wholly comprised of software), I think it's pretty clear that the term of the patents needs to be substantially reduced.
Yes - we do need to have terms that match the industries the patents are for. And perhaps we need to even break patents down to be more like Trademarks, i.e. you can get a patent for use in one industry (e.g. Telephone Switch Networks) that does not affect another industry (e.g. Internet Routers).
The best way I can think to do this is to require a business plan to be filed with the patent, and the two go hand in hand. The business plan then determines the basic term granted for that specific patent, and is limited by allowing the patentee to recoup costs and some percentage of profit above and beyond that (e.g. you spend $100K to develop the patent, and then you get to make $150K guaranteed by the granting of the patent). Additionally, by putting a review board in (comprised of members from SEC and IRS) to review the business plans on a periodic basis (e.g. annually, ever other year, etc.) the term can then be lengthened or shortened to meet the industry based on the performance of the patent.
This would allow high cost patents (e.g. drugs) to be around for a long time, while low cost patents (e.g. software patents) would go away quickly. Additionally, if the cost was low enough the patent would not be granted as it would be recouped before the patent was granted.
Patent trolls would also go out of business as they would not be able to submit business plans that would qualify, and be exposed for what they are.
So this is a real win-win if adopted. (BTW, I would get rid of the USPTO and replace it with a new organization that had arms in the IRS and SEC to do the job. A lot of the information required is already filed with the IRS and SEC, and if anything would only require a little more documentation in the files as some stuff might have to be further broken down. Point is, it's already there.)
All of those things are under control of the Ubuntu interface designers, so no, you can't just pin this on GRUB.
No - none of those things are part of a interface designers job, and it is quite obvious yo have no clue about what an interface designer does. All of the tasks you listed are part of the project manager's job, and come out through Validation & Verification testing, as well as proper engineering.
An Interface Designer is solely in charge of the Human-Computer Interface (HCI) and Computer-Human Interface (CHI). That is, they are the ones that decide how a dialog is laid out, where to place a button, what to call that button, etc. But they do not, absolutely do not, dictate project choices related to using this software package or that software package. They simply guide the software to a state that is has a usable interface. That's it. In fact, many HCI people never write a line of code and solely draw mock-ups of interfaces that are given to programmers to then implement, and the project is not allowed forward until the interface looks and functions exactly as the HCI person said it would look and function. This is how Microsoft and Apple both do Windows and MacOS/OS X interface design, as well as numerous other companies (e.g. game companies like Id, EA, Sega, Nintendo, etc.).
Now, the issues you raise are good ones to raise - but they are not by any stretch of the imagination the interface designer's job.
FYI - I do agree that KDE/GNOME/Xfce/etc and the numerous GUI projects out there need a lot more work with respect to HCI, and that is one of the big draw backs for the Linux distributions. HCI is not a big deal for programmers (typically) or servers, as servers need to use the resources that would otherwise be dedicated to providing the HCI interfaces so minimal interfaces on servers is highly desirable. I'd certainly love to be able to use KDE or GNOME using either the mouse OR the keyboard. As it stands today, by default, I can only use the mouse to do basic navigation - which gets quite annoying when the mouse does not work and I am trying to get out of X Windows. (Why do I have to run 'killall X' when X and the keyboard are working fine, and it is only the mouse that is not. That is one major advantage the Windows has - even Mac has a lot of that functionality.)
You make your money by selling proprietary solutions: Microsoft and Cisco. If you are No. 3 to No. 10
Sure, Cisco has a lot of legacy, closed source software - and probably some non-legacy too - but that also use a lot of Open Source software too. So how does that fit into his argument? (Or at least the posters?) Likely, it doesn't - thereby breaking down the entire argument, no?
Well..if it is still available, then some Linux guys should get together and purchase microsoft.ms and point it to kernel.org, or may be linux.com...hehehe..
I checked some last night and again tonight. I even installed the latest Flash player, but got denied access to FoxNews, NBC, and CBS shows. Oddly, though, they all wanted me to install the latest flash player. Looking at the page source for the FoxNews page, it relied on VBScript to determine the player version (through an active X control) but otherwise used JavaScript. I did not check why CBS's or NBC's site would not run it. So, I am still out from being able to watch them via on-line.
FYI - I used both Firefox 2 and 1.5.0.3, and Flash 9. I even reinstalled Flash 9. FoxNews was suppose to require Flash 7, but would not work even with Flash 9.
When exactly was the last time you checked? For the last few months I've been using CBS's Innertube to watch Jericho just fine on my Macbook. It uses Realplayer and about all the software you need. It can use Windows Media player if you have it but it doesn't need it.
See here, though, your comment makes me think that they are may be deciding what to use on a per-show basis...which would just be odd, inefficient, and would still go back to my original comment...can anybody confirm? I'll check tonight when I get home to see what I can/can't watch and see if anything is viewable under x86 Linux.
Specifically - CBS - it's been a while; I had a TV this year (my wife wanted it), but I had checked around for the 2006 State of the Union, and none of them offered anything that was watchable under Linux at that time. I believe I have checked since, but not necessarily CBS, and had the same issue arise. Great to hear CBS and NBC using a Flash Video Player. I still stand by my original comment though - just because this gen of tech does, doesn't mean that the next will too (or won't for that matter), though it is more likely to do so. Hopefully the landscape will continue to improve for us non-Windows people.
All joking aside - and quite seriously - will it run in a web browser on Linux? I'd rather not have a TV and be able to get to video clips (like the President's State of the Union address) over the Internet. Last I checked, the major networks (CBS, ABC, AOL, etc.) were using tech that relied on Windows Media Puke to play, thus I couldn't watch it from my Linux PC. (Even Yahoo! does that with their YouTube/GoogleVideo equivalent, so I stay away from it.) Really that is probably part of the success behind YouTube and GoogleVideo - it runs on any platform without a problem. Running Mac? No problem. Running Linux? No problem. Running Windows? No problem.
So, will CBS's new syndication system run on Linux? If so, great - I'll be there to watch it. If not, too bad; guess I'll have to wait.
Doesn't matter what you call it. It's still the same thing. The only thing changing its name will do is make it harder for Anti-DRM people to argue it as now you have to retrain everyone on terminology, especially since we would have to explain that it is not really "Consumer Enablement" but "Company Enablement to Control the Consumer".
So, I hereby proclaim that we should change the name from DRM (Digital Rights Management; Digital Restriction Management) to Digital Company Enablement to Control the Consumer (DCECC). That's really what it is.
that allows consumers "to use content in ways they haven't before,"
And no, people have been doing that for years. Just differently. Before it was splicing VHS/Beta in different means. Then it was on computer and distributed via VHS or DVD. Now, they are just doing it all on computers which makes it easier to do. It's nothing new, and people will realize that.
I've never looked into the whole sat-pirate scene......can anyone explain how they get the *new* key onto the box? Are they always there? Is there some kind of master-key? or do they include it in the signal as an update, and if so: why isn't it just grabbed by the cracker/hacker as it gets broadcast?
Am I missing something obvious here?
Yes, the new keys (to my knowledge, at least, which is fairly limited) are in the signal as an update. The reason they don't just get the keys from the broadcast is that the broadcast is encrypted - you need a set of keys to receive the new keys. Once you have a set of keys, you can then get in the loop and get the updates - again, once you figure out how. So the whole process may need to be repeated numerous times to get into the loop as you figure out each step. It's not impossible, just difficult and time consuming.
There may be other methods - I'm not very familiar with the sat-pirate scene either, but I am aware of this being one of the methods and the big picture functioning of it.
If you know where and how to use them, they actually are a sensible choice.
Agreed - GOTOs are useful if you know how to use them. Problem is, Academia does not teach anyone how to use them any more. However, that does not mean they are always the best choice.
As you later explained, you write kernel code. GOTOs are good there because speed is required, and using other methods may slow down the speed. The trade off is speed for ease of writing.
This is also true for some applications in user land. However, more often than not, a well laid out if-then block is a better choice (C, C++, Java), and sometimes an Exception Handler may be good too (C++, Java). However, these other techniques are not always the best either. For example, if you read up on the recent animated cursor (ANI) vulnerability in Windows, it was an Exception Handler that it got tracked to - one that caught and handled an exception that it should not have (invalid pointer or something).
So, my point is that regardless of what you are programming you really do need to look at all the possibilities and decide what is the best method. Sometimes that will be GOTOs, other times (and more often than not) it will be other mechanisms. By no one mechanism is an Be-All-End-All mechanism. They all have their strengths, weaknesses, and faults.
I wonder why the HD-DVD people don't get together with the satellite people? Satellite TV is extremely secure and has never really been cracked successfully. Most cracks involve emulating a smartcard, which is easy since the smartcards still use early 80s technology. Even then, nobody has really done a crack that wasn't fixed within a week.
SatTV has long been cracked. They make it harder for individuals to keep it cracked as they routinely change the keys, so cracks don't last very long unless you are really good and can get the new keys to update in cycle. This has been well known for years, and there are people that are using cracked SatTV.
What the SatTV companies do makes it sufficiently difficult and ensures that no single crack will crack the entire system. Unfortunately (for RIAA/MPAA/Content Protectors/etc), when it comes to read-only media like CD, DVD, HD-DVD, BR-DVD, etc, or even media that is not always in a drive that method is impossible to do since it needs a connection to the key distributor at all times, or on cycle.
While I do not like Ballmer at all, with respect to the iPhone he is likely right - not necessarily, however, for the reasons he stated.
First, the iPhone is marketed at the cell phone market but is far more than a cell phone - it's practically a hand-held laptop. (I say "hand-held laptop" because it is more than a PDA too.) So, from the aspect of market - it's the wrong market; at least that is how it is being presented, but that also leads too...
Two, the price is too high for its market. $500 for a phone is not going to sell. Yes, you'll get the Apple/Mac loyalists, so you may get 2%-5% of the market, but you're only going to get a small market. However, if you push the iPhone as something other than a phone (i.e. change the market it is being targeted to) then $500 may end up being quite reasonable depending upon the market you chose to go into.
The problem is that Apple is trying to avoid the PDA market and trying to get into the cell phone market. They want to stay out of the PDA market, because everyone will remember the Apple Newton and it will die because of that alone, even if it is a great product. So they chose the cell phone market. Ok, but they are packing too much into it.
So...more likely than not, the iPhone will fail, and it will be very surprising if it is any where near as successful as say Yahoo in Internet searches vs Google.
Yeah, if you want to be very precise, software is a language for describing math. "height = v_initial * time - 9.8 * time * time" is literally a sequence of characters that represents a mathematical equation. Much like a math textbook contains language, some English, some in a specialized language for expressing math, but pretty much all of it describing mathematical concepts. You're right in that you end up at the same point either way -- language describing math should not be patentable, even if the language is one ammenable to computers.
Actually, my thought of it as being language is more towards what we are doing with programming OO concepts - whether doing OO in C (where it is more obvious), or in C++, Java, Small Talk, etc (where it is not so obvious). The majority of programming, especially when it comes to OO, is simply assignment; secondarily, it is data manipulation - and rather basic manipulation too; but in either case it is managing a process towards some goal and we are describing in language how to do that.
For example, a process to write copy a file can be summed in:
Open file at source
Open file at destination
Pick a chunk of data from source file and put in destination file
Repeat previous step until no more data is in the source file
Close both files
There is no math involved whatsoever in that process, though we do use math to perform the task. This is more because of the pervasiveness of math in everything we do than it is the nature of math in a computer.
That is to say, while math is involved in writing programs, it is becoming less involved than it use to be so much so that it is no more important in programming than it is for a UPS driver in delivering packages. Some programmers will need to know more math than others in order to get the program to function - just like an Accountant needs to know more math in filling out the books than the CEO does in reading them - but overall, it is not so much related as it use to be.
That is not to say that programmers do not need math training - they do. It is just that math is starting to take more of a back seat in how computers function, and this is a process that will only continue. That does not mean, however, that software is any less tangible than it was before - it is a very intangible thing. Nor does it mean that software qualifies for any kind of patent as a result of being "less math based".
As always, some parts of the system will have more math than others just like any other field. So, ultimately, software is merely language dictating to the computer what to do, and includes as a subset the mathematical language used to calculate parts of those instructions (e.g. loops, calculations, etc.). Math is not the primary function of the language.
First of all - I am all with you in finding that Software is unpatentable for at least the same reasons you stated. Software is better kept under Copyright Law and Trade Secret Law. However to play Devil's Advocate for a minute....
If you don't think so, then I give you what should be the easier challenge: Prove that software isn't math through counter-example, by showing me a single instruction or line of code whose semantic meaning is not directly translatable into simple statements of boolean logic or, rarely, analog (real number) math?
I made the argument a while back to a friend that software is not math, but language - a construct describing to the computer what it is to do - what is desired; that language does borrow from the language of math, but it is itself not math. This works much like an interpreter between human languages even, perhaps analogous to a user's installation manual:
Write something in one language (e.g. Russian, Dutch, C, C++)
Interpret to another language (e.g. English, Finnish, Assembly, Binary)
Read what was written and follow instructions if necessary (e.g. Run a program, perform a task, etc.)
BTW - the above may also qualify as a "business process" which is equally unpatentable for similar reasons, though the Federal Courts (below SCOTUS) have held them patentable; I am not aware of SCOTUS saying one way or the other with respect to business processes.
Now, I am not saying the above is a perfect argument in any respect, however, I think if you follow it out more you will still arrive at the same conclusion you did just going from 'math' and 'algorithm' - it is not patentable, and is better kept under Copyright Law and Trade Secret Law.
Now here's the key twist. In an Amicus brief that was probably not appreciated by Microsoft and apparently not embraced by the court, the SFLC argued that *all* software is like a blueprint or an algorithm, as this weird test case of installing it overseas versus installing it domestically demonstrates (in their view). Therefore, software should be fundamentally unpatentable.
However, in the oral arguments (transcript here), Justice Breyer even gets them to say that the court has not held the software is patentable. To quote one of the Justices (P. 22, lines 6 to 9):
JUSTICE BREYER: I take it that we are operating under the assumption that software is patentable? We have never held that in this Court, have we?
Notice to affected people within 72 hours (48 hours?) of knowledge of the incident.
Enforcement of all non-government groups not being allowed to collect or use information like SSN, Driver's License Number, Passport Number, except for as needed to fill out government forms, which basically means employers and places that have to either give you tax information or report it.
Requirement of all entities to obtain only the minimal amount of information
Requirement of all entities to receive written, notarized permission to share information with 3rd parties
I'm sure we could some up with others for this, but that should be a good start. And yes, I realize some of that screws marketers. So what.
You know you can just right click on the folder in question and choose "remove from favorite folders"?
I wasn't trying to remove a folder from "Favorites" but remove the "Favorites" pane from view. Microsoft does not provide a way to do that, except through this "Bug" that I found. Two different things.
I have to use Outlook at work, and in previous editions (OL97,OL98, OL2000) you did not have this "favorites" box at the top of the Folder List. However, with OL2003 you do, and Microsoft provides no way to turn it off, except through a bug in Outlook. By turning off a lot of the crap, and then switching to calendar and back using the buttons at the bottom of the Folder List, you can get the Favorites to disappear. With the number of folders I maintain in Outlook it makes this bug one killer feature to get rid of a very annoying part of Outlook 2003. Now if I could only figure out the same bug-feature for keeping Outlook 2003 from enabling the Reading Pane and Preview windows for newly created folders (or when upgrading).
P.S. BTW - before you all start complaining about Outlook, if you do configure Outlook properly it is just as secure as anything else. In all the years I've used Outlook (since December 1997), I have only had 2 virii run in it - and I did those myself purposely. The trick - turn off any kind of Autopreview functionality (e.g. Reading Pane, Preview, Autopreview, etc.), and set Outlook to use the Restricted Internet Zone - those two will prevent most things from being functional or running automatically.
Still, the Dyson is a favorite for me, got a DC15 at home. I had to look at allergenic usage, and Dyson (from what I could tell) was the only vaccuum that was really certified for allergies (BAF, or whatever the British Government's agency is for it). I have used other (Hoovers, Dirt Devils, etc.) in the past, but would end up sneezing and such by the dust and allergens they'd kick up. Have never had a problem with the Dyson - and my wife (who has asthma) can be around while I clean without any issues too, in fact she can even use the Dyson to do the vacuuming with (she couldn't the older ones, and even industry grade ones she used at work (even though she shouldn't have) would cause her problems.
Still, my favorite part about the Dyson is its engineering - how easy it is to take apart and clean, how easy it is to use & manage, etc.
I do agree on the price - $500USD is a bit much, but well worth it; of course, we bought ours from Bed, Bath, & Beyond when Dyson ran a special with them for a $100USD gift card to Bed, Bath, & Beyond, and we used a nifty 20% off coupon too - so we only spent $300 for it. (We do a lot of shopping there, so the gift card came in handy any way.)
Like anything, you do have to keep it maintained - for example, washing the filter (every 6 months) and other parts on a regular basis. Maintain it properly, and it will last.
Even if you give them an additional 30 days to buffer the launch dates with units to sell you'd still get roughly 37.7k Wiis per a day.
Not quite. You would have to factor in how quickly the initial supply sold out; after that it would come out differently - and likely still quiet close to the original 46.5k per day. So... suppose an initial supply of 400k units with a sell out of 7 days (close, I think):
Initial Supply = 400k
Initial Supply Sell Out = 7 days
400k / 7 = 57142.857.. Wiis/day
Sold Since = 5600000
Period = 129 - Initial Supply Sell Out = 129 - 7 = 122
5600000 / 122 = 45901.6393... Wiis/day
So, even more to the point - that's a massive amount to produce. Now, given that the typically produce this over the course of a week, delivered on Fridays to stores, and sold out within hours on Sunday morning...it's even that much more. So...
Weekly = 45901.6393 * 7 = 321311.47540...Wiis produced weekly
Sold out within 4 hours
321311.47540 / 4 = 80327.86885...sold per hour
Any manufacturer would love to have that kind of sales figure. The only thing I think could really compare for any single manufacturer would be for manufacturers of staples, toothpicks, paper clips, and such (where they sell hundreds in a single, small container).
He also argues that putting the onus of spotting infringement onto the content providers represents an undue burden on them.
Sorry, but while IANAL in so far as I am aware, Copyright Law requires that the content owners/providers/etc have the burden of spotting and proving infringement. That onus is on them exactly for the same reason that it is the trademark owners and patent owners burden to do the same in order to maintain it. That's how the law works, like it or not. If that is too big a burden for you to bear, then get out of that market, and/or realize that what you might be calling infringement might not necessarily be infringement, but be provided under "fair use" or citations.
May be you should rework your contracts so that the content owners/producers have the burden, but then if you did that then may be they would go elsewhere...
Oh, and you have been sending copies to the Copyright Office and paying the registration fee for everything, right? Because while yes you do get a copyright regardless, you cannot necessarily enforce it if you do not. (Gotta love that gotcha.)
That's why you get the WiiStone - a grave stone Wiimote with cellular capabilities to dial in to your home and interact with your Wii. Play with your relatives who are beyond the grave today. WiiStones starting at $100,000USD.
DISCLAIMER: No, WiiStones do not exist. It's a joke if you couldn't catch it.
Slashdot Mirror
The best way I can think to do this is to require a business plan to be filed with the patent, and the two go hand in hand. The business plan then determines the basic term granted for that specific patent, and is limited by allowing the patentee to recoup costs and some percentage of profit above and beyond that (e.g. you spend $100K to develop the patent, and then you get to make $150K guaranteed by the granting of the patent). Additionally, by putting a review board in (comprised of members from SEC and IRS) to review the business plans on a periodic basis (e.g. annually, ever other year, etc.) the term can then be lengthened or shortened to meet the industry based on the performance of the patent.
This would allow high cost patents (e.g. drugs) to be around for a long time, while low cost patents (e.g. software patents) would go away quickly. Additionally, if the cost was low enough the patent would not be granted as it would be recouped before the patent was granted.
Patent trolls would also go out of business as they would not be able to submit business plans that would qualify, and be exposed for what they are.
So this is a real win-win if adopted. (BTW, I would get rid of the USPTO and replace it with a new organization that had arms in the IRS and SEC to do the job. A lot of the information required is already filed with the IRS and SEC, and if anything would only require a little more documentation in the files as some stuff might have to be further broken down. Point is, it's already there.)
An Interface Designer is solely in charge of the Human-Computer Interface (HCI) and Computer-Human Interface (CHI). That is, they are the ones that decide how a dialog is laid out, where to place a button, what to call that button, etc. But they do not, absolutely do not, dictate project choices related to using this software package or that software package. They simply guide the software to a state that is has a usable interface. That's it. In fact, many HCI people never write a line of code and solely draw mock-ups of interfaces that are given to programmers to then implement, and the project is not allowed forward until the interface looks and functions exactly as the HCI person said it would look and function. This is how Microsoft and Apple both do Windows and MacOS/OS X interface design, as well as numerous other companies (e.g. game companies like Id, EA, Sega, Nintendo, etc.).
Now, the issues you raise are good ones to raise - but they are not by any stretch of the imagination the interface designer's job.
FYI - I do agree that KDE/GNOME/Xfce/etc and the numerous GUI projects out there need a lot more work with respect to HCI, and that is one of the big draw backs for the Linux distributions. HCI is not a big deal for programmers (typically) or servers, as servers need to use the resources that would otherwise be dedicated to providing the HCI interfaces so minimal interfaces on servers is highly desirable. I'd certainly love to be able to use KDE or GNOME using either the mouse OR the keyboard. As it stands today, by default, I can only use the mouse to do basic navigation - which gets quite annoying when the mouse does not work and I am trying to get out of X Windows. (Why do I have to run 'killall X' when X and the keyboard are working fine, and it is only the mouse that is not. That is one major advantage the Windows has - even Mac has a lot of that functionality.)
Well..if it is still available, then some Linux guys should get together and purchase microsoft.ms and point it to kernel.org, or may be linux.com...hehehe..
FYI - I used both Firefox 2 and 1.5.0.3, and Flash 9. I even reinstalled Flash 9. FoxNews was suppose to require Flash 7, but would not work even with Flash 9.
All joking aside - and quite seriously - will it run in a web browser on Linux? I'd rather not have a TV and be able to get to video clips (like the President's State of the Union address) over the Internet. Last I checked, the major networks (CBS, ABC, AOL, etc.) were using tech that relied on Windows Media Puke to play, thus I couldn't watch it from my Linux PC. (Even Yahoo! does that with their YouTube/GoogleVideo equivalent, so I stay away from it.) Really that is probably part of the success behind YouTube and GoogleVideo - it runs on any platform without a problem. Running Mac? No problem. Running Linux? No problem. Running Windows? No problem.
So, will CBS's new syndication system run on Linux? If so, great - I'll be there to watch it. If not, too bad; guess I'll have to wait.
So, I hereby proclaim that we should change the name from DRM (Digital Rights Management; Digital Restriction Management) to Digital Company Enablement to Control the Consumer (DCECC). That's really what it is.
And no, people have been doing that for years. Just differently. Before it was splicing VHS/Beta in different means. Then it was on computer and distributed via VHS or DVD. Now, they are just doing it all on computers which makes it easier to do. It's nothing new, and people will realize that.
it'll be Earth that it will hit and any bacteria will overcome all immune defenses...
There may be other methods - I'm not very familiar with the sat-pirate scene either, but I am aware of this being one of the methods and the big picture functioning of it.
As you later explained, you write kernel code. GOTOs are good there because speed is required, and using other methods may slow down the speed. The trade off is speed for ease of writing.
This is also true for some applications in user land. However, more often than not, a well laid out if-then block is a better choice (C, C++, Java), and sometimes an Exception Handler may be good too (C++, Java). However, these other techniques are not always the best either. For example, if you read up on the recent animated cursor (ANI) vulnerability in Windows, it was an Exception Handler that it got tracked to - one that caught and handled an exception that it should not have (invalid pointer or something).
So, my point is that regardless of what you are programming you really do need to look at all the possibilities and decide what is the best method. Sometimes that will be GOTOs, other times (and more often than not) it will be other mechanisms. By no one mechanism is an Be-All-End-All mechanism. They all have their strengths, weaknesses, and faults.
What the SatTV companies do makes it sufficiently difficult and ensures that no single crack will crack the entire system. Unfortunately (for RIAA/MPAA/Content Protectors/etc), when it comes to read-only media like CD, DVD, HD-DVD, BR-DVD, etc, or even media that is not always in a drive that method is impossible to do since it needs a connection to the key distributor at all times, or on cycle.
Or rather...Security Nearly Amounts to Format Unavailable, i.e. SNAFU.
While I do not like Ballmer at all, with respect to the iPhone he is likely right - not necessarily, however, for the reasons he stated.
First, the iPhone is marketed at the cell phone market but is far more than a cell phone - it's practically a hand-held laptop. (I say "hand-held laptop" because it is more than a PDA too.) So, from the aspect of market - it's the wrong market; at least that is how it is being presented, but that also leads too...
Two, the price is too high for its market. $500 for a phone is not going to sell. Yes, you'll get the Apple/Mac loyalists, so you may get 2%-5% of the market, but you're only going to get a small market. However, if you push the iPhone as something other than a phone (i.e. change the market it is being targeted to) then $500 may end up being quite reasonable depending upon the market you chose to go into.
The problem is that Apple is trying to avoid the PDA market and trying to get into the cell phone market. They want to stay out of the PDA market, because everyone will remember the Apple Newton and it will die because of that alone, even if it is a great product. So they chose the cell phone market. Ok, but they are packing too much into it.
So...more likely than not, the iPhone will fail, and it will be very surprising if it is any where near as successful as say Yahoo in Internet searches vs Google.
For example, a process to write copy a file can be summed in:
- Open file at source
- Open file at destination
- Pick a chunk of data from source file and put in destination file
- Repeat previous step until no more data is in the source file
- Close both files
There is no math involved whatsoever in that process, though we do use math to perform the task. This is more because of the pervasiveness of math in everything we do than it is the nature of math in a computer.That is to say, while math is involved in writing programs, it is becoming less involved than it use to be so much so that it is no more important in programming than it is for a UPS driver in delivering packages. Some programmers will need to know more math than others in order to get the program to function - just like an Accountant needs to know more math in filling out the books than the CEO does in reading them - but overall, it is not so much related as it use to be.
That is not to say that programmers do not need math training - they do. It is just that math is starting to take more of a back seat in how computers function, and this is a process that will only continue. That does not mean, however, that software is any less tangible than it was before - it is a very intangible thing. Nor does it mean that software qualifies for any kind of patent as a result of being "less math based".
As always, some parts of the system will have more math than others just like any other field. So, ultimately, software is merely language dictating to the computer what to do, and includes as a subset the mathematical language used to calculate parts of those instructions (e.g. loops, calculations, etc.). Math is not the primary function of the language.
Note: bold and italics added for emphasis only.
- Write something in one language (e.g. Russian, Dutch, C, C++)
- Interpret to another language (e.g. English, Finnish, Assembly, Binary)
- Read what was written and follow instructions if necessary (e.g. Run a program, perform a task, etc.)
BTW - the above may also qualify as a "business process" which is equally unpatentable for similar reasons, though the Federal Courts (below SCOTUS) have held them patentable; I am not aware of SCOTUS saying one way or the other with respect to business processes. Now, I am not saying the above is a perfect argument in any respect, however, I think if you follow it out more you will still arrive at the same conclusion you did just going from 'math' and 'algorithm' - it is not patentable, and is better kept under Copyright Law and Trade Secret Law.The SCOTUS ruling is an interesting read, and very good.
- Notice to affected people within 72 hours (48 hours?) of knowledge of the incident.
- Enforcement of all non-government groups not being allowed to collect or use information like SSN, Driver's License Number, Passport Number, except for as needed to fill out government forms, which basically means employers and places that have to either give you tax information or report it.
- Requirement of all entities to obtain only the minimal amount of information
- Requirement of all entities to receive written, notarized permission to share information with 3rd parties
I'm sure we could some up with others for this, but that should be a good start. And yes, I realize some of that screws marketers. So what.I wasn't trying to remove a folder from "Favorites" but remove the "Favorites" pane from view. Microsoft does not provide a way to do that, except through this "Bug" that I found. Two different things.
I have to use Outlook at work, and in previous editions (OL97,OL98, OL2000) you did not have this "favorites" box at the top of the Folder List. However, with OL2003 you do, and Microsoft provides no way to turn it off, except through a bug in Outlook. By turning off a lot of the crap, and then switching to calendar and back using the buttons at the bottom of the Folder List, you can get the Favorites to disappear. With the number of folders I maintain in Outlook it makes this bug one killer feature to get rid of a very annoying part of Outlook 2003. Now if I could only figure out the same bug-feature for keeping Outlook 2003 from enabling the Reading Pane and Preview windows for newly created folders (or when upgrading).
P.S. BTW - before you all start complaining about Outlook, if you do configure Outlook properly it is just as secure as anything else. In all the years I've used Outlook (since December 1997), I have only had 2 virii run in it - and I did those myself purposely. The trick - turn off any kind of Autopreview functionality (e.g. Reading Pane, Preview, Autopreview, etc.), and set Outlook to use the Restricted Internet Zone - those two will prevent most things from being functional or running automatically.
Still, the Dyson is a favorite for me, got a DC15 at home. I had to look at allergenic usage, and Dyson (from what I could tell) was the only vaccuum that was really certified for allergies (BAF, or whatever the British Government's agency is for it). I have used other (Hoovers, Dirt Devils, etc.) in the past, but would end up sneezing and such by the dust and allergens they'd kick up. Have never had a problem with the Dyson - and my wife (who has asthma) can be around while I clean without any issues too, in fact she can even use the Dyson to do the vacuuming with (she couldn't the older ones, and even industry grade ones she used at work (even though she shouldn't have) would cause her problems.
Still, my favorite part about the Dyson is its engineering - how easy it is to take apart and clean, how easy it is to use & manage, etc.
I do agree on the price - $500USD is a bit much, but well worth it; of course, we bought ours from Bed, Bath, & Beyond when Dyson ran a special with them for a $100USD gift card to Bed, Bath, & Beyond, and we used a nifty 20% off coupon too - so we only spent $300 for it. (We do a lot of shopping there, so the gift card came in handy any way.)
Like anything, you do have to keep it maintained - for example, washing the filter (every 6 months) and other parts on a regular basis. Maintain it properly, and it will last.
Initial Supply = 400k
Initial Supply Sell Out = 7 days
400k / 7 = 57142.857.. Wiis/day
Sold Since = 5600000
Period = 129 - Initial Supply Sell Out = 129 - 7 = 122
5600000 / 122 = 45901.6393... Wiis/day
So, even more to the point - that's a massive amount to produce. Now, given that the typically produce this over the course of a week, delivered on Fridays to stores, and sold out within hours on Sunday morning...it's even that much more. So...
Weekly = 45901.6393 * 7 = 321311.47540...Wiis produced weekly
Sold out within 4 hours
321311.47540 / 4 = 80327.86885...sold per hour
Any manufacturer would love to have that kind of sales figure. The only thing I think could really compare for any single manufacturer would be for manufacturers of staples, toothpicks, paper clips, and such (where they sell hundreds in a single, small container).
May be you should rework your contracts so that the content owners/producers have the burden, but then if you did that then may be they would go elsewhere...
Oh, and you have been sending copies to the Copyright Office and paying the registration fee for everything, right? Because while yes you do get a copyright regardless, you cannot necessarily enforce it if you do not. (Gotta love that gotcha.)
DISCLAIMER: No, WiiStones do not exist. It's a joke if you couldn't catch it.