Word is that this is a counter suit. CSIRO has had the patent for more than a decade, but the only company that has paid royaties is CISCO. Under the guidance of a business development whiz CSIRO is now trying to get more return from its patent portfolio. So they sent a bill to some of the big boys. They don't want to pay, so now they are ganging up on an impoverished quasi-government agency.
I agree with this comment except for the implication that a "formal hierarchy" would be preferable. Seems obvious, but a little more thought reveals the flaws. Who chooses the hierarchy? You may file something in one place while I might look for it in another. That's why a web is better than a tree. How many times have you lost something in your "hierarchical file system" and had to track it down with grep or find or "Search"? And how many times have you (wished you could spare the time to have) reorganised your stuff and put it in a new hierarchy as your interests and project evolve. I believe that newer "file systems" are abandoning the hierarchical/tree structure altogether in favour of a "search" paradigm. Alta-Vista used to sell something like this.
"Pretty cool, but I think most of the major faults already have this information from ground measurements."
Traditional methods involved in-situ gauges and periodic levelling and surveying lines. But these only provide measurements at a few points or along a few lines. Converting this into a picture of the strain field over an area is quite fraught. The survey lines are also quite expensive to do right (satellites are expensive too, but usually they are up there for more than one reason) but most importantly can only be executed occasionally - the time resolution is lousy.
The remote-sensing methods overcome most of these disadvantages.
efuseekay (138418) wrote: "(I hate the term "pressure", because pressure to me seems to be a local scalar quantity but such is jargon.), a directed constant force (i.e. a vector quantity.)"
Pressure is a colloquial term for the first invariant of the normally 9 component stress tensor. Most people only think about pressure in a fluid, such as the atmosphere or under water. Fluids cannot sustain "shear stress" (i.e. the off-diagonal terms in the stress tensor are zero) and the degenerate form of the the stress tensor for this case has equal value for the three components on the diagonal, equal to the invariant.
Correct. But if your multiple tables involves making choices as well as joins, then this is either equivalent to more than one Sensor language or you are on the path to inventing something with at least as much complexity as an XML-based solution. Discovery of the sensor that you want will require either joins or multi-DB queries.
One goal of SensorML is to reduce the number of entry points. The cost of this is (of necessity) a flexible document structure. Hence XML.
The SensorML discussed in the article grew out of satellite/remote-sensing apps, and is thus packed with stuff that is specialised for that area (mobile platform, non-geodetic coordinate systems, radiance and radar stuff). It is a live issue within the organisation through which it is being developed (OGC) as to whether it can be generalised to cover many more sensor types, or whether there should be multiple "SensorML"-like languages, each for a different style of instrumentation. I tend to think the latter, but hopefully the buckets will still be few and large rather than many and small, so using a semi-structured language will probably still be optimal.
Because there is a great variety of possible sensor types, and (at least curently) we can't imagine how to force all the necessary description into a table straightjacket. This kind of application really is ideal for a semi-structured language, which is what XML Schema enables.
However, if "microorganisms" is substituted for "trees and grasses", then this is not science fiction but inductrial fact. Now it is true that currently this is used for second stage processing on piles that have already been crushed and ground into small pieces rather than for the actual mining process, but it is not such a stretch to imagine introducing the little beasties directly into the ore-body in due course. And way preferable to digging holes and expecting people to work inside them.
"I'm beginning to believe that there is little difference between the police AND the criminals any more"
That thesis has been around for a long time. It is one of the case studies in the 1950's pop psychology classic "The Games People Play". The notion is that the fuzz and the crims are largely a closed group playing games that probably started in teh school yard - it was certainly the case that if you tracked the toughs from my school yard they went in one of two directions - into the police, or into jail. It was unpredictable which ones went where...
And then there's this one that did the rounds a few years ago:
***New Subject Oriented Programming Language***
C+- (pronounced "C more or less")
Unlike C++, C+- is a subject oriented language. Each C+- class instance, known as a subject, holds hidden members, known as prejudices or undeclared preferences, which are impervious to outside messages, as well as public members known as boasts or claims. The following C operators are overridden as shown:
> better than > much better than forget it ! not on your life == comparable, other things being equal
C+- is a strongly typed language based on stereotyping and self-righteous logic. The Boolean variables TRUE and FALSE (known as constants in less realistic languages) are supplemented with CREDIBLE and DUBIOUS, which are fuzzier than Zadeh's traditional fuzzy categories. All Booleans can be declared with the modifiers strong and weak. Weak implication is said to "preserve deniability" and was added at the request of the D.O.D. to ensure compatability with future versions of Ada. Well-formed falsehoods (WFFs) are assignment-compatible with all booleans. What-if and why-not interactions are aided by the special conditional evenifnot X then Y.
C+- supports information hiding and, among friend classes only, rumor sharing. Borrowing from the Eiffel lexicon, non-friend classes can be killed by arranging contracts. Note that friendships are intransitive, volatile, and non-Abelian.
Single and multiple inheritance mechanisms are implemented with random mutations. Disinheritance rules are covered by a complex probate protocol. In addition to base, derived, virtual, and abstract classes, C+- supports gut classes. In certain locales, polygamous derivations and bastard classes are permitted. Elsewhere, loose coupling between classes is illegal, so the marriage and divorce operators may be needed:
marriage (MParent1, FParent1); //child classes can now be derived sclass MySclass: public MParent1, FParent1 {// define MySclass
sclass YourSclass: public MParent1, FParent2 // illegitimate
divorce (MParent1, FParent1);
marriage (MParent1, FParent2); sclass YourSclass: public MParent1, FParent2 {// OK now
Operator precedence rules can be suspended with the directive #pragma dwim, known as the "Do what I mean" pragma. ANSIfication will be firmly resisted. C+-'s slogan is "Be Your Own Standard."
In recent economic history tome "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" David Landes referred to the effect that this might have on Asian-Tiger-Economy-Pretender Thailand - big problems in Bangkok: first the transportation system is so stuffed that no-one can expect to make more than two meetings in a day, and second the pollution is so bad that juvenile IQ 's (whatever that measures...) are down a dozen points or so. Lead is the big problem there.
Slashdot Mirror
Word is that this is a counter suit.
CSIRO has had the patent for more than a decade, but the only company that has paid royaties is CISCO.
Under the guidance of a business development whiz CSIRO is now trying to get more return from its patent portfolio.
So they sent a bill to some of the big boys.
They don't want to pay, so now they are ganging up on an impoverished quasi-government agency.
I agree with this comment except for the implication that a "formal hierarchy" would be preferable. Seems obvious, but a little more thought reveals the flaws. Who chooses the hierarchy? You may file something in one place while I might look for it in another. That's why a web is better than a tree. How many times have you lost something in your "hierarchical file system" and had to track it down with grep or find or "Search"? And how many times have you (wished you could spare the time to have) reorganised your stuff and put it in a new hierarchy as your interests and project evolve. I believe that newer "file systems" are abandoning the hierarchical/tree structure altogether in favour of a "search" paradigm. Alta-Vista used to sell something like this.
"Pretty cool, but I think most of the major faults already have this information from ground measurements."
Traditional methods involved in-situ gauges and periodic levelling and surveying lines. But these only provide measurements at a few points or along a few lines. Converting this into a picture of the strain field over an area is quite fraught. The survey lines are also quite expensive to do right (satellites are expensive too, but usually they are up there for more than one reason) but most importantly can only be executed occasionally - the time resolution is lousy.
The remote-sensing methods overcome most of these disadvantages.
efuseekay (138418) wrote:
"(I hate the term "pressure", because pressure to me seems to be a local scalar quantity but such is jargon.), a directed constant force (i.e. a vector quantity.)"
Pressure is a colloquial term for the first invariant of the normally 9 component stress tensor. Most people only think about pressure in a fluid, such as the atmosphere or under water. Fluids cannot sustain "shear stress" (i.e. the off-diagonal terms in the stress tensor are zero) and the degenerate form of the the stress tensor for this case has equal value for the three components on the diagonal, equal to the invariant.
Correct. But if your multiple tables involves making choices as well as joins, then this is either equivalent to more than one Sensor language or you are on the path to inventing something with at least as much complexity as an XML-based solution. Discovery of the sensor that you want will require either joins or multi-DB queries.
One goal of SensorML is to reduce the number of entry points. The cost of this is (of necessity) a flexible document structure. Hence XML.
The SensorML discussed in the article grew out of satellite/remote-sensing apps, and is thus packed with stuff that is specialised for that area (mobile platform, non-geodetic coordinate systems, radiance and radar stuff). It is a live issue within the organisation through which it is being developed (OGC) as to whether it can be generalised to cover many more sensor types, or whether there should be multiple "SensorML"-like languages, each for a different style of instrumentation. I tend to think the latter, but hopefully the buckets will still be few and large rather than many and small, so using a semi-structured language will probably still be optimal.
Simon Cox
Because there is a great variety of possible sensor types, and (at least curently) we can't imagine how to force all the necessary description into a table straightjacket. This kind of application really is ideal for a semi-structured language, which is what XML Schema enables.
Another precedent along these lines:
:-)). This is because the poms invented them I guess.
British postage stamps do not have a country identifier on them (unless the Queen's head counts
However, if "microorganisms" is substituted for "trees and grasses", then this is not science fiction but inductrial fact. Now it is true that currently this is used for second stage processing on piles that have already been crushed and ground into small pieces rather than for the actual mining process, but it is not such a stretch to imagine introducing the little beasties directly into the ore-body in due course. And way preferable to digging holes and expecting people to work inside them.
WCMI92 wrote:
...
"I'm beginning to believe that there is little difference between the police AND the criminals any more"
That thesis has been around for a long time.
It is one of the case studies in the 1950's pop psychology classic "The Games People Play".
The notion is that the fuzz and the crims are largely a closed group playing games that probably started in teh school yard - it was certainly the case that if you tracked the toughs from my school yard they went in one of two directions - into the police, or into jail.
It was unpredictable which ones went where
Lucky you, having "another family member" on tap for such duties. But then there are the rest of us who grew up and actually left home ...
Pandora has been running for more than a year now already.
And then there's this one that did the rounds a few years ago:
//child classes can now be derived // define MySclass
// illegitimate
// OK now
***New Subject Oriented Programming Language***
C+- (pronounced "C more or less")
Unlike C++, C+- is a subject oriented language. Each C+- class instance, known as a subject, holds hidden members, known as prejudices or undeclared preferences, which are impervious to outside messages, as well as public members known as boasts or claims. The following C operators
are overridden as shown:
> better than
> much better than
forget it
! not on your life
== comparable, other things being equal
C+- is a strongly typed language based on stereotyping and self-righteous logic. The Boolean variables TRUE and FALSE (known as constants in less realistic languages) are supplemented with CREDIBLE and DUBIOUS, which
are fuzzier than Zadeh's traditional fuzzy categories. All Booleans can be declared with the modifiers strong and weak. Weak implication is
said to "preserve deniability" and was added at the request of the D.O.D. to ensure compatability with future versions of Ada. Well-formed
falsehoods (WFFs) are assignment-compatible with all booleans. What-if and why-not interactions are aided by the special conditional evenifnot X then Y.
C+- supports information hiding and, among friend classes only, rumor sharing. Borrowing from the Eiffel lexicon, non-friend classes can be
killed by arranging contracts. Note that friendships are intransitive, volatile, and non-Abelian.
Single and multiple inheritance mechanisms are implemented with random mutations. Disinheritance rules are covered by a complex probate protocol. In addition to base, derived, virtual, and abstract classes, C+- supports gut classes. In certain locales, polygamous derivations and
bastard classes are permitted. Elsewhere, loose coupling between classes is illegal, so the marriage and divorce operators may be needed:
marriage (MParent1, FParent1);
sclass MySclass: public MParent1, FParent1
{
sclass YourSclass: public MParent1, FParent2
divorce (MParent1, FParent1);
marriage (MParent1, FParent2);
sclass YourSclass: public MParent1, FParent2
{
Operator precedence rules can be suspended with the directive #pragma dwim, known as the "Do what I mean" pragma. ANSIfication will be firmly resisted. C+-'s slogan is "Be Your Own Standard."
In recent economic history tome "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" David Landes referred to the effect that this might have on Asian-Tiger-Economy-Pretender Thailand - big problems in Bangkok: first the transportation system is so stuffed that no-one can expect to make more than two meetings in a day, and second the pollution is so bad that juvenile IQ 's (whatever that measures ...) are down a dozen points or so. Lead is the big problem there.