Ok, Mr. AC, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words "overly simplified". It was an analogy. Get a clue. Nor was I saying that every new use for an existing machine could not be patented.
But what is certain: If the process is not intrinsically tied to a specific machine, and if the process does not perform some sort of transformation of one thing into something else, it cannot be patented.
Trivialize it if you wish. Patent lawyers are freaking out. They at least don't think it's trivial.
I have not used Mootools. I was first exposed to jQuery when I was trying to integrate WYMEditor into my company's CMS. When we ran into an issue, where we needed to add a CSS class to some server-side-generated code that we could not touch, the answer from somebody on a forum was, "Just use jQuery," and I was shown a one-liner that did exactly what we needed. Not only that, it was instantly understandable. My initial reaction, having struggled with doing this manually in the past, was, "It can't be that easy." Of course, I have used it in countless ways since then. I personally find it quite self-documenting.
Your point is well taken. I was not aware of this distinction.
Now, the next step in the right direction would be a ruling to the effect that a method claim cannot be recast as an apparatus claim, just to avoid the machine requirement. i.e., that if there is no essential difference between a method claim and an apparatus claim when the apparatus incorporates a general-purpose machine, the apparatus claim, by the same standard, should be denied.
Apparatus claims are not sufficient to get around In re Biski. Simply adding the words "On a computer" or "On a handheld device" (or long drawn-out complicated descriptions which equate to the same), to a process that is, in itself, purely algorithmic or an abstract process that could equally apply to any number of pre-existing machines, does not rise to the level of the machine requirement in In re Biski.
I like to put it his way (though this is overly simplified, perhaps): If you come up with a novel way to use a screw driver, you cannot patent your method, because you didn't have to invent the screw driver to do it. The screw driver already existed.
In this patent, you could substitute the words, "web page displayed in a browser, running on a hand-held computer with a touch screen" for the bulk of the claim copy. Well, none of that qualifies a process as unique to a specific machine. The fact that there are many different devices that meet his description, devices that are in no way intrinsically linked to this patent, brings this into direct conflict with In re Bilski.
Actually, most of them will, if you install the Nightly Tester Tools add-on. You can then force compatibility on any or all of your add-ons.
YMMV, but in my case, the following work fine in 3.1 beta 1: iMacros, Adblock Plus, DownloadHelper, Firebug, Flashgot, Foxmarks, and Web Developer Toolbar.
Probably nothing like a Seagate, but, technically they are SSD drives. I imagine they are probably more like big thumbdrives with a run-of-the-mill SATA controller slapped on them.
I've been doing Photoshop work for years, played with a number of fractal algorithms, used such "miracle" filters as greycstoration, and I've never seen anything like this.
I don't believe that the "before" picture is accurate at all. I think it has already been degraded from the original, and the "after" more closely represents the quality of the source image.
The part "was without form, void" is a bad translation and should say "became without form, and void;"
That is what we call a "theological translation". You believe that only because somebody told you that. It could just as well mean that in the process of creating the earth, it was, at the particular point in time we are noting, formless and empty.
The verb is hayah. In Gen. 2:1, it's just your basic "be" verb, in the Qal 3rd person form. "At that point in time, it so was". If it was speaking of a future event, it would be "it will be".
The verb has no connotation of some process of becoming, nor does it imply some transitional state that proceeded it. It merely means that at this particular point in time, whatever may have been, it is this way now.
This is Hebrew 101. It's just a "be" verb. This is simple stuff, dude. And that is why any major translation you care to name: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, JPS, NJB, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, Luther's 1545 German, translate it: "the earth was...". But of course, they must all have been inept translators . . .
My company runs a fileserver on Linux, shared via CIFS/SMB and netatalk simultaneously, with accounts in LDAP. All the Macs use AFP.
It has been absolutely flawless. In fact, it is much faster than the OSX-based fileserver we used to use (and a fraction of the cost of an Apple XServe). AFP has just simply not been a problem.
First: Linux has had EFI support since early 2000 via elilo.
Second: The "emulation" as you call it is not emulation in the same sense that Rosetta is emulation. They implemented a BIOS interface in EFI itself. It does not slow anything down.
1) It gives you a moment to think. 2) It forces you to distinguish between commands that can frack your whole system, and commands that will likely only frack a part of it.
You guys act as if using sudo is an Ubuntu thing. For frack's sake, it predates Linux.
Since when did living in root ever become a "good thing"? I've been administering Linux systems for 10 years. I was drilled into me then to work as a user, use sudo when necessary, and leave root for those cases where sudo is impractical (in other words - when you have lots of stuff to do as root).
Unless this is a hubris competition - in which case I'll just say, "Get off my lawn, you damn kids!"
No garbage collection? That's funny. When I wrote my app, I couldn't compile without it.
Come again? There is no automatic garbage collection in the iPhone. You, the developer, have to release memory. ObjC 2.0 has automatic garbage collection. The iPhone does not. Reason, according to Apple: resources.
The only garbage collection I know of in the iPhone, is in the WebKit Javascript core.
"testing a T-mobile phone on a T-mobile network gives better results than testing an AT&T phone on a T-mobile network"
And that is total BS. I've just spent the last year using an unlocked Blackjack (AT&T Phone) on T-Mobile. I bought it used to replace my Dash which had died. The Blackjack was more stable, but the GPRS/EDGE speed was identical. If anything, it felt faster on the Blackjack, but that's probably just a snappier UI.
You put cold fusion and human cloning in the same category as trying out two different phones on the same network? Well then, more power to you. Carry on, Jeeves.
Slashdot Mirror
And to whomever modded this Offtopic: Whoosh!
Ok, Mr. AC, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words "overly simplified". It was an analogy. Get a clue. Nor was I saying that every new use for an existing machine could not be patented.
But what is certain: If the process is not intrinsically tied to a specific machine, and if the process does not perform some sort of transformation of one thing into something else, it cannot be patented.
Trivialize it if you wish. Patent lawyers are freaking out. They at least don't think it's trivial.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081103134949355
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081109185020183
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081112034806294
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422
Somebody better feed Grandpa his oatmeal.
I have not used Mootools. I was first exposed to jQuery when I was trying to integrate WYMEditor into my company's CMS. When we ran into an issue, where we needed to add a CSS class to some server-side-generated code that we could not touch, the answer from somebody on a forum was, "Just use jQuery," and I was shown a one-liner that did exactly what we needed. Not only that, it was instantly understandable. My initial reaction, having struggled with doing this manually in the past, was, "It can't be that easy." Of course, I have used it in countless ways since then. I personally find it quite self-documenting.
Your point is well taken. I was not aware of this distinction.
Now, the next step in the right direction would be a ruling to the effect that a method claim cannot be recast as an apparatus claim, just to avoid the machine requirement. i.e., that if there is no essential difference between a method claim and an apparatus claim when the apparatus incorporates a general-purpose machine, the apparatus claim, by the same standard, should be denied.
Apparatus claims are not sufficient to get around In re Biski. Simply adding the words "On a computer" or "On a handheld device" (or long drawn-out complicated descriptions which equate to the same), to a process that is, in itself, purely algorithmic or an abstract process that could equally apply to any number of pre-existing machines, does not rise to the level of the machine requirement in In re Biski.
I like to put it his way (though this is overly simplified, perhaps): If you come up with a novel way to use a screw driver, you cannot patent your method, because you didn't have to invent the screw driver to do it. The screw driver already existed.
In this patent, you could substitute the words, "web page displayed in a browser, running on a hand-held computer with a touch screen" for the bulk of the claim copy. Well, none of that qualifies a process as unique to a specific machine. The fact that there are many different devices that meet his description, devices that are in no way intrinsically linked to this patent, brings this into direct conflict with In re Bilski.
Very few FF3.0 plugins will work on 3.1beta.
Actually, most of them will, if you install the Nightly Tester Tools add-on. You can then force compatibility on any or all of your add-ons.
YMMV, but in my case, the following work fine in 3.1 beta 1: iMacros, Adblock Plus, DownloadHelper, Firebug, Flashgot, Foxmarks, and Web Developer Toolbar.
Ah! Ok, then.
Uh, yeah, and?
http://tinyurl.com/cheapssd
Probably nothing like a Seagate, but, technically they are SSD drives. I imagine they are probably more like big thumbdrives with a run-of-the-mill SATA controller slapped on them.
Yes, my thought exactly.
I've been doing Photoshop work for years, played with a number of fractal algorithms, used such "miracle" filters as greycstoration, and I've never seen anything like this.
I don't believe that the "before" picture is accurate at all. I think it has already been degraded from the original, and the "after" more closely represents the quality of the source image.
The part "was without form, void" is a bad translation and should say "became without form, and void;"
That is what we call a "theological translation". You believe that only because somebody told you that. It could just as well mean that in the process of creating the earth, it was, at the particular point in time we are noting, formless and empty.
The verb is hayah. In Gen. 2:1, it's just your basic "be" verb, in the Qal 3rd person form. "At that point in time, it so was". If it was speaking of a future event, it would be "it will be".
The verb has no connotation of some process of becoming, nor does it imply some transitional state that proceeded it. It merely means that at this particular point in time, whatever may have been, it is this way now.
This is Hebrew 101. It's just a "be" verb. This is simple stuff, dude. And that is why any major translation you care to name: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, JPS, NJB, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, Luther's 1545 German, translate it: "the earth was ...". But of course, they must all have been inept translators . . .
My company runs a fileserver on Linux, shared via CIFS/SMB and netatalk simultaneously, with accounts in LDAP. All the Macs use AFP.
It has been absolutely flawless. In fact, it is much faster than the OSX-based fileserver we used to use (and a fraction of the cost of an Apple XServe). AFP has just simply not been a problem.
First: Linux has had EFI support since early 2000 via elilo.
Second: The "emulation" as you call it is not emulation in the same sense that Rosetta is emulation. They implemented a BIOS interface in EFI itself. It does not slow anything down.
For recent versions:
sudo -i
shorter
It does two things:
1) It gives you a moment to think.
2) It forces you to distinguish between commands that can frack your whole system, and commands that will likely only frack a part of it.
You guys act as if using sudo is an Ubuntu thing. For frack's sake, it predates Linux.
Since when did living in root ever become a "good thing"? I've been administering Linux systems for 10 years. I was drilled into me then to work as a user, use sudo when necessary, and leave root for those cases where sudo is impractical (in other words - when you have lots of stuff to do as root).
Unless this is a hubris competition - in which case I'll just say, "Get off my lawn, you damn kids!"
No. People who run as root all the time are either n00bs or morons.
N00bs if they have never spoken the words, "Oh sh*t!" after running a command;
Morons if they have.
This, from the man who believes, and I quote:
Obama is a well respected Constitutional scholar...
I'm dealing with generalizations. In this case, the generalization is "G1 has VM. iPhone has Native code. Therefore G1 slower."
Of course, the iPhone runs on a single-core 620Mhz ARM11 core CPU.
The G1, on the other hand, has a dual-core 528Mhz Arm11 chip, PLUS a GPU.
Overall, the G1 has a lot more number-crunching power than the iPhone.
No garbage collection? That's funny. When I wrote my app, I couldn't compile without it.
Come again? There is no automatic garbage collection in the iPhone. You, the developer, have to release memory. ObjC 2.0 has automatic garbage collection. The iPhone does not. Reason, according to Apple: resources.
The only garbage collection I know of in the iPhone, is in the WebKit Javascript core.
"testing a T-mobile phone on a T-mobile network gives better results than testing an AT&T phone on a T-mobile network"
And that is total BS. I've just spent the last year using an unlocked Blackjack (AT&T Phone) on T-Mobile. I bought it used to replace my Dash which had died. The Blackjack was more stable, but the GPRS/EDGE speed was identical. If anything, it felt faster on the Blackjack, but that's probably just a snappier UI.
And somebody cannot read, evidently.
Hmm. This is the same thing the CompareEverywhere app for Android (G1) does.
http://compare-everywhere.com/
Is the patent broad enough to ace these guys out?
You put cold fusion and human cloning in the same category as trying out two different phones on the same network? Well then, more power to you. Carry on, Jeeves.
Even if you remove the SIM chip, all the network apps still work just fine on WiFi. GPS, etc., still functions.