You should blast yourself, either for being a deficient geek or for not paying enough attention to the "mainstream media". I heard the spread-spectrum story a couple of years ago on the radio, at least twice.
She was also in the news in '98 when she sued Corel for using her picture on the CorelDraw box without permission. --
If Katz's book has been optioned for a movie, that doesn't mean he will have anything to do with the screenplay if/when one is written. The eventual movie may use his story, or the basic ideas of the book, or it may bear no resemblance to Katz's work at all. --
Arguing that this simplistic text input method is a trade secret is like trying to patent a Font.
The idea of using one stroke per character was definitely an improvement for handwriting recognition. The Palm seems to do a better job than, say, the Newton.
If that idea doesn't count as an advance in the state of the art, what does? What would you grant a patent for?
I do wonder why it took Xerox so long to notice the Palm, though. --
If this thing is possible with RDS I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner but I thought it was only the RDS signals from the station you were listening to that could change the frequency.
So how does your car's radio know whose antenna(e) the radio waves are coming from? It doesn't. The pirates aren't reluctant to broadcast on someone else's assigned frequency. As long as their RDS transmission doesn't collide with a legitimate one from the targeted station, your radio can't tell there's anything wrong. --
1. JPL knew about the risks all along, and never told anyone about them.
2. JPL didn't know about the risks (like they should have), and are now trying to cover their butts by saying, "Hey, it's not our fault! It's impossible to land anything safely on that planet!"
How about:
3. JPL never said that they had the landing site pinpointed to an exact spot, and never guaranteed that the site was as flat as a billiard table.
Come on guys, grow up and admit that you screwed up. Don't apologize, just don't do it again.
Don't do what again? Don't send out any space probes if there is any risk of failure? Don't build any space probes until they've perfected the technology? (bit of a catch 22 there)
BTW, this was one of NASA's new "low"-cost missions. According to them, the cost of two spacecraft is capped at $184M. Compare to, what was it, a billion dollars for Viking in the '70s? Given the immaturity of the technology, I think this is prudent.
Disclaimer: Currently, none of my tax dollars are paying for these particular missions. I am chipping in for the space station, however. --
"Hello, little brother. Welcome to the world of DoubleClick Inc. " --
Who said MS was mentioned in the story?
on
Profiling A Nation
·
· Score: 1
I read: "Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, Australia's biggest media company and allied to Microsoft..." That's in the/. article, not in the linked story on new.com.au. And it links MS to PBL, not to Acxiom.
It should also be noted that, besides Microsoft, Inside Rugby magazine and The Australian Women's Weekly are in on the evil conspiracy. In fact, if you click down far enough, you get to Rupert Murdoch and Bart Simpson.
But the list of conspirators is very long, so by the usual convention it is abbreviated to "Microsoft Corp.". --
No, unless I'm thinking of a different rexec than you are, that's not what Intel's patent is about. They might use rexec to implement their hypothetical system, but rexec itself only does part of what they're claiming a patent on. (Like DCOM, which someone else mentioned.)
I mean, you can't say that all software patents are invalid because someone had already invented assembly language. Or that no mechanical devices can be patented because they all make use of the classical machines (lever, wheel, whatever, I forget, I'm a software guy).
raph's mention of Sprite seems to be getting close...the "main" system determines what and when the "remote" computers execute. --
I've been trying to think of a system that actually exists which is similar to the patent, and I can't.
SETI@home, distributed.net, GIMPS, etc. The remote PC runs the program at will, when it's idle.
DCOM. Just because Microsoft invented something that could be used to implement the patent, doesn't mean the patent is bogus.
When I worked at "a major software company"(*), there was for a while a system that used the programmers' PCs on the LAN to compile a big application each night. (This was back in the days of 286's & 386's with 1MB RAM, when a build could take all night or longer on one PC.) Each user had to activate the system when they left work, so the "predetermined time" was determined by the remote PC. It probably did react to "a start message from the central computer", but I'm not sure.
It still seems possible that someone somewhere has done the same thing that Intel has patented, and I'm curious to hear more examples -- from people that have actually read the patent claims.
(*) If I told you the name of the company, I would lose all my moderation points and my karma would drop to zero.:-) --
"Oh my God, they've patented computers! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!"
I've learned to examine what a patent actually claims before I decide whether it's ridiculous. The blurb that you read in a news article is never a description of what is actually patented. --
It seems like they offer email as a service to customers, and are being blamed for debugging their service.
Alibris themselves say that they did nothing except debug their service.
The U.S. Attorney, on the other hand, charged them with "unauthorized possession of passwords with intent to defraud", among other things (ref. CNN ). I assume there were some grounds for the charges, but since they were settled without a trial or conviction, we'll probably never know the truth of the matter. --
Don't make these mandatory forms that people have to fill out before using your product.
It's not a released product yet, it's a beta test. The purpose of this release is to get a bunch of people to test WP under real-world conditions, to find the bugs and deficiencies that didn't show up in QA.
Naturally, they want to know the exact h/w and s/w environment that WP is running in, to be able to reproduce and fix the bugs that you report.
Typically, when a bug is reported, a programmer tries to reproduce it and says "Gee, it works on my machine." Now what? Is it some weird quirk of the software, or is it a bug in one of your device drivers or a hardware incompatibility? They can't get anywhere without knowing your system configuration.
Corel's questionnaire has a couple of strange questions ("Windows version"), but I guess it's just their standard kitchen-sink beta testers' form. Also, since it's an "open" beta, they may be trying to make sure that they get users who are seriously interested in using the software and helping them to find and fix any bugs it has.
You will gain NOTHING from them. NOTHING! except a bunch of useless fake data.
Why in the world would people lie about this stuff? Unless they want Corel not to be able to fix the bugs they report.
I've been involved in beta test programs from both sides. Companies that do beta testing really work hard to get useful feedback from their users and fix the bugs they find. Beta testers are brave and dedicated souls, who put their computers at risk in order to help make software safe for everyone else. (And to be first on the block to play with some nifty new stuff.)
If all you wanted out of Corel's WordPerfect beta program was a quickie preview, and you don't feel like filling out the form, well, fine. --
I don't think it's a matter of GSM "taking off", but rather the American cellphone companies are locked in to the particular network protocols they selected a few years back, which for most of them is CDMA or TDMA.
To slightly contradict what I wrote earlier, I wonder if this would be because the United States was ahead of Europe, so European carriers ended up adopting a later, more advanced digital cellphone protocol.
Anyone know if I'm speculating in the right direction? --
Perhaps the reason that Europe is ahead of North America in this is because many of these devices (e.g. the ones mentioned in the MSNBC article) work on GSM digital networks. GSM was designed from the outset to support data services, such as SMS, which are widely available in the Rest of the World, but pretty much unknown in N.A. where few cellphones use GSM.
Funny how certain consumer technologies are widely adopted in Europe before the USA, where the consumer is (supposedly) king. GSM, smart cards, teletext (remember that?), fast trains. But these technologies all require a widespread and uniform infrastructure, which the American fragmented ("comptetitive") markets and weaker government are not always able to provide.
No big social message here, just an observation.
BTW, I live in Canada, which more resembles the USA in this context. We have only one GSM cellphone company. --
Contrary to the reports I've read on this, and quotes from the researchers, this experiment doesn't show that "computers make better ad execs than people" or that "creativity thrives on limitations rather than complete freedom".
Rather, what they seem to have demonstrated is that a computer that is programmed with one method of creating advertisements can create better ads than some people who know absolutely nothing about writing ads.
Gee. Are we also shocked to discover that Microsoft Word's spell checker can spell better than someone who is completely illiterate? --
Slashdot Mirror
She was also in the news in '98 when she sued Corel for using her picture on the CorelDraw box without permission.
--
If Katz's book has been optioned for a movie, that doesn't mean he will have anything to do with the screenplay if/when one is written. The eventual movie may use his story, or the basic ideas of the book, or it may bear no resemblance to Katz's work at all.
--
The idea of using one stroke per character was definitely an improvement for handwriting recognition. The Palm seems to do a better job than, say, the Newton.
If that idea doesn't count as an advance in the state of the art, what does? What would you grant a patent for?
I do wonder why it took Xerox so long to notice the Palm, though.
--
So how does your car's radio know whose antenna(e) the radio waves are coming from? It doesn't. The pirates aren't reluctant to broadcast on someone else's assigned frequency. As long as their RDS transmission doesn't collide with a legitimate one from the targeted station, your radio can't tell there's anything wrong.
--
3. JPL never said that they had the landing site pinpointed to an exact spot, and never guaranteed that the site was as flat as a billiard table.
Don't do what again? Don't send out any space probes if there is any risk of failure? Don't build any space probes until they've perfected the technology? (bit of a catch 22 there)BTW, this was one of NASA's new "low"-cost missions. According to them, the cost of two spacecraft is capped at $184M. Compare to, what was it, a billion dollars for Viking in the '70s? Given the immaturity of the technology, I think this is prudent.
Disclaimer: Currently, none of my tax dollars are paying for these particular missions. I am chipping in for the space station, however.
--
CGIwrap Error: Script is not executable. Issue chmod 755 /www/home/recordstore.com/cgi-bin/wuname/wuname.pl
You can call me CGIwrap for short.
--
I am not, nor have I ever been, a Linux user.
--
"Hello, little brother. Welcome to the world of DoubleClick Inc. "
--
If you follow the above link to ninemsn you can discover that "Ninemsn is an online joint venture between the Microsoft Corporation and Publishing and Broadcasting Limited (PBL)."
It should also be noted that, besides Microsoft, Inside Rugby magazine and The Australian Women's Weekly are in on the evil conspiracy. In fact, if you click down far enough, you get to Rupert Murdoch and Bart Simpson.
But the list of conspirators is very long, so by the usual convention it is abbreviated to "Microsoft Corp.".
--
... GameSpy?
--
I mean, you can't say that all software patents are invalid because someone had already invented assembly language. Or that no mechanical devices can be patented because they all make use of the classical machines (lever, wheel, whatever, I forget, I'm a software guy).
raph's mention of Sprite seems to be getting close...the "main" system determines what and when the "remote" computers execute.
--
- SETI@home, distributed.net, GIMPS, etc. The remote PC runs the program at will, when it's idle.
- DCOM. Just because Microsoft invented something that could be used to implement the patent, doesn't mean the patent is bogus.
- When I worked at "a major software company"(*), there was for a while a system that used the programmers' PCs on the LAN to compile a big application each night. (This was back in the days of 286's & 386's with 1MB RAM, when a build could take all night or longer on one PC.)
It still seems possible that someone somewhere has done the same thing that Intel has patented, and I'm curious to hear more examples -- from people that have actually read the patent claims.Each user had to activate the system when they left work, so the "predetermined time" was determined by the remote PC. It probably did react to "a start message from the central computer", but I'm not sure.
(*) If I told you the name of the company, I would lose all my moderation points and my karma would drop to zero. :-)
--
I've learned to examine what a patent actually claims before I decide whether it's ridiculous. The blurb that you read in a news article is never a description of what is actually patented.
--
Alibris themselves say that they did nothing except debug their service.
The U.S. Attorney, on the other hand, charged them with "unauthorized possession of passwords with intent to defraud", among other things (ref. CNN ). I assume there were some grounds for the charges, but since they were settled without a trial or conviction, we'll probably never know the truth of the matter.
--
It's not a released product yet, it's a beta test. The purpose of this release is to get a bunch of people to test WP under real-world conditions, to find the bugs and deficiencies that didn't show up in QA.
Naturally, they want to know the exact h/w and s/w environment that WP is running in, to be able to reproduce and fix the bugs that you report.
Typically, when a bug is reported, a programmer tries to reproduce it and says "Gee, it works on my machine." Now what? Is it some weird quirk of the software, or is it a bug in one of your device drivers or a hardware incompatibility? They can't get anywhere without knowing your system configuration.
Corel's questionnaire has a couple of strange questions ("Windows version"), but I guess it's just their standard kitchen-sink beta testers' form. Also, since it's an "open" beta, they may be trying to make sure that they get users who are seriously interested in using the software and helping them to find and fix any bugs it has.
You will gain NOTHING from them. NOTHING! except a bunch of useless fake data.
Why in the world would people lie about this stuff? Unless they want Corel not to be able to fix the bugs they report.
I've been involved in beta test programs from both sides. Companies that do beta testing really work hard to get useful feedback from their users and fix the bugs they find. Beta testers are brave and dedicated souls, who put their computers at risk in order to help make software safe for everyone else. (And to be first on the block to play with some nifty new stuff.)
If all you wanted out of Corel's WordPerfect beta program was a quickie preview, and you don't feel like filling out the form, well, fine.
--
I too received a "Forbidden" error on the original URL. Are we under-privileged in some way?
--
To slightly contradict what I wrote earlier, I wonder if this would be because the United States was ahead of Europe, so European carriers ended up adopting a later, more advanced digital cellphone protocol.
Anyone know if I'm speculating in the right direction?
--
Funny how certain consumer technologies are widely adopted in Europe before the USA, where the consumer is (supposedly) king. GSM, smart cards, teletext (remember that?), fast trains. But these technologies all require a widespread and uniform infrastructure, which the American fragmented ("comptetitive") markets and weaker government are not always able to provide.
No big social message here, just an observation.
BTW, I live in Canada, which more resembles the USA in this context. We have only one GSM cellphone company.
--
Rather, what they seem to have demonstrated is that a computer that is programmed with one method of creating advertisements can create better ads than some people who know absolutely nothing about writing ads.
Gee. Are we also shocked to discover that Microsoft Word's spell checker can spell better than someone who is completely illiterate?
--