To be fair, it is possible that the inventors did not know of the BlueJ functionality. It is also possible, I think, that nobody else involved in the patent process was aware of the BlueJ functionality.
A company the size of Microsoft will have a legal department - they'll be the ones responsible for putting the patent together, doing prior art searches, and filing the documents. It is conceivable, and likely, I think, that the inventors developed the concept independent of BlueJ and submitted it to the legal department. They perform a prior art search, which will probably focus mainly on existing patent and patent publications. If the keywords they use for their search don't turn up BlueJ, they won't find it. I'm not certain if BlueJ even has any patents. If not, then the most of the prior art searching will be in vain, because it won't find them anyways.
Sure, it would be nice if the inventors could search for the prior art, but that's not their area of expertise. Let's face it - it's not trivial to find out if someone else has done something before you. Sure, you can google it, but how do you ensure you search for the correct keywords? Add to that the inventors are engineers - they're probably already up to their neck in existing work and simply don't have the time to perform the searches.
It is possible that Microsoft was trying to patent something they knew had already been done, but I doubt that. I think it is more likely that the people involved with the patent didn't know that the concept had already been done.
Is this was some no-name company that tried to do this, it wouldn't even make/. - we're discussing it because it's Microsoft.
The 48GX isn't sold anymore, but there are others now that they do make . They range from the non-RPN HP 9g for $29.99 (but seriously, why bother if it's non-RPN?) to the HP 50g for $149.99 - which supports RPN, has 2.5MB RAM and an SD card slot.
I own a 48GX and have loved it, but the screen is broken and has leaked liquid crystal across a portion of the screen, so I'm due for a new one - I don't need graphing support, so I'll likely go with the $49.99 33s - cheapest one they make with RPN. I just don't like the chevron button layout.
XP Embedded supports this feature. They call it WORM, for Write Once, Read Many. While I have never actually used it myself, my understanding is that you create a typical image for what you need loaded, then write that to the drive as a binary image, similar (maybe exactly?) to hibernation. Then whenever you boot, you come back to that pre-defined state.
This type of feature really makes sense for embedded system devices, especially point-of-sale systems. It seems like a reasonable feature for the desktop as well, but I'm not sure the typical user would understand how to set up the hibernation file. And there's always the issue about changing it when you make changes to your system: update the OS, Virus Scanner, etc.
Vista is supposed to have features that improve the load times, but I haven't played with it yet. Anybody out there is Slashdot-dom had a chance to test drive some of those features yet?
I don't think double jeopardy would apply here at all. If this went in place, even if the levy meant that you could not be sued for illegal music on your iPod (which I'm not convinced it would, but IANAL), it certainly would not absolve you from copyright infringement on your computer.
This is not a good thing in disguise. It's presumptuos and arrogant of Universal to assume that they are entitled to a percentage of iPod sales. What's next? Will they ask for a portion of headphone sales, since headphones are used to listen to illegal music? What about stereos and amplifiers?
Let me ask you this: Should the cops have just left? When someone is where they are not supposed to be, acting belligerent and confrontational, refusing to cooperate, should the police just leave? Maybe the police should only arrest those that are cooperative.
Nobody is suggesting the police should leave. How about arresting him? Or would you prefer perhaps shooting him? Just because a cop is issued a tazer doesn't mean their allowed to use it on someone who argues with them non-violently. A good cop would never have let the situation get out of control - with three officers they could easily have subdued and arrested him. They used the tazer like it was a cattle prod. All officers involved should be fired, especially the one who threatens a student at the end.
Free speech is the cornerstone of western culture. That means free speech for christians, muslims, capitalists, socialists, communists, whatever. Radical or otherwise. I can't imagine evil machinations at work that are trying to get people to support free speech for some nefarious goal.
I think it is a matter of scale. When the bartender brings you the 'usual', you're not concerned that he's selling that data to someone else. When a computer is able to determine what the 'usual' is, like iTunes, or the grocery store, or Amazon, or whatever, they are able to collect much more data and able to mine it efficiently.
On the one hand, I like the idea of recommending music that is similar to me - that's what is compelling about some online services (like Pandora). On the other hand, I too have concerns about what will be done with this data. It might seem harmless enough, but just what kind of profiling can they do?
In the end, as mentioned above, it is posted right on Apple's site that this is going on, so this is not spyware, it's a feature.
So the suggestion is to get everyone to post, but don't post too much. And if someone happens to find a lot of interesting articles in a (day, week, month...whatever), oh well, too bad. Let's hopes someone else who isn't posting too often can put it up. Sounds like a mistake to me. What happens if someone is posting interesting, relevant articles, with 'good' links often? Should that person be penalized for posting a lot of good stuff?
Oh, and don't forget that this type of 'protection' is easily circumvented by creating new accounts and posting under them. You won't stop the link-whore - they'll make 10, 20, 100 accounts, whatever it takes, and post from them - maybe only one post a week, or whatever it takes to stay under the threshold. What you will do is stifle the prolific 'legit' poster.
If personal benefit is really the problem, then maybe all posts should be anonymous? Seriously, isn't getting credit for the post one of the big benefits?
If you disagree with my statement, but instead think that personal benefit is still the problem (as in the benefit of having a link to your own page), then your defining what personal benefit means to you. I submit that not everyone has the same goals.
This is my first post with a new account to/. - I've been lurking for a long time, and I find the articles and discussions (mostly) relevant and interesting. That being said, I don't usually RTFA, unless it is something very interesting. I find the information posted from the community to usually be of more benefit, and often it has better links to information about the topic of discussion.
I agree with other posters, and with CmdrTaco, that the problem is the OT discussion. If someone takes the time to post an article, and they want to get a link to their (worthless, off-topic, whatever) site, that is their benefit and kudos for posting an interesting link. Cencorship of the link because they are a 'problem' user is a big mistake, IMO. It's one thing to moderate posts based on the content; relevance, dupes, etc. It's another to not post it because you don't like the submitter, for whatever reason. That includes waiting for someone else to submit the same topic. That seems wholly unfair to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Your lack or patriotism and excessive use of foul language has been noted...
To be fair, it is possible that the inventors did not know of the BlueJ functionality. It is also possible, I think, that nobody else involved in the patent process was aware of the BlueJ functionality.
A company the size of Microsoft will have a legal department - they'll be the ones responsible for putting the patent together, doing prior art searches, and filing the documents. It is conceivable, and likely, I think, that the inventors developed the concept independent of BlueJ and submitted it to the legal department. They perform a prior art search, which will probably focus mainly on existing patent and patent publications. If the keywords they use for their search don't turn up BlueJ, they won't find it. I'm not certain if BlueJ even has any patents. If not, then the most of the prior art searching will be in vain, because it won't find them anyways.
Sure, it would be nice if the inventors could search for the prior art, but that's not their area of expertise. Let's face it - it's not trivial to find out if someone else has done something before you. Sure, you can google it, but how do you ensure you search for the correct keywords? Add to that the inventors are engineers - they're probably already up to their neck in existing work and simply don't have the time to perform the searches.
It is possible that Microsoft was trying to patent something they knew had already been done, but I doubt that. I think it is more likely that the people involved with the patent didn't know that the concept had already been done.
Is this was some no-name company that tried to do this, it wouldn't even make /. - we're discussing it because it's Microsoft.
The 48GX isn't sold anymore, but there are others now that they do make . They range from the non-RPN HP 9g for $29.99 (but seriously, why bother if it's non-RPN?) to the HP 50g for $149.99 - which supports RPN, has 2.5MB RAM and an SD card slot.
I own a 48GX and have loved it, but the screen is broken and has leaked liquid crystal across a portion of the screen, so I'm due for a new one - I don't need graphing support, so I'll likely go with the $49.99 33s - cheapest one they make with RPN. I just don't like the chevron button layout.
XP Embedded supports this feature. They call it WORM, for Write Once, Read Many. While I have never actually used it myself, my understanding is that you create a typical image for what you need loaded, then write that to the drive as a binary image, similar (maybe exactly?) to hibernation. Then whenever you boot, you come back to that pre-defined state.
This type of feature really makes sense for embedded system devices, especially point-of-sale systems. It seems like a reasonable feature for the desktop as well, but I'm not sure the typical user would understand how to set up the hibernation file. And there's always the issue about changing it when you make changes to your system: update the OS, Virus Scanner, etc.
Vista is supposed to have features that improve the load times, but I haven't played with it yet. Anybody out there is Slashdot-dom had a chance to test drive some of those features yet?
I don't think double jeopardy would apply here at all. If this went in place, even if the levy meant that you could not be sued for illegal music on your iPod (which I'm not convinced it would, but IANAL), it certainly would not absolve you from copyright infringement on your computer.
This is not a good thing in disguise. It's presumptuos and arrogant of Universal to assume that they are entitled to a percentage of iPod sales. What's next? Will they ask for a portion of headphone sales, since headphones are used to listen to illegal music? What about stereos and amplifiers?
Nobody is suggesting the police should leave. How about arresting him? Or would you prefer perhaps shooting him? Just because a cop is issued a tazer doesn't mean their allowed to use it on someone who argues with them non-violently. A good cop would never have let the situation get out of control - with three officers they could easily have subdued and arrested him. They used the tazer like it was a cattle prod. All officers involved should be fired, especially the one who threatens a student at the end.
Free speech is the cornerstone of western culture. That means free speech for christians, muslims, capitalists, socialists, communists, whatever. Radical or otherwise. I can't imagine evil machinations at work that are trying to get people to support free speech for some nefarious goal.
More like "submitter is using data from TFA".
According to TFA, Credit Suisse analysts say Apple has shipped 7.75 million device in fiscal Q3, compared with an earlier forecast of 8.25 million.
Is this accurate? I don't know, but I think it's unfair to claim the submitter is making up the statement when it's clearly there in TFA.
Wait a minute - I'm no astronomer, but there's a difference between the moon and the sun?!?!
I think it is a matter of scale. When the bartender brings you the 'usual', you're not concerned that he's selling that data to someone else. When a computer is able to determine what the 'usual' is, like iTunes, or the grocery store, or Amazon, or whatever, they are able to collect much more data and able to mine it efficiently.
On the one hand, I like the idea of recommending music that is similar to me - that's what is compelling about some online services (like Pandora). On the other hand, I too have concerns about what will be done with this data. It might seem harmless enough, but just what kind of profiling can they do?
In the end, as mentioned above, it is posted right on Apple's site that this is going on, so this is not spyware, it's a feature.
So the suggestion is to get everyone to post, but don't post too much. And if someone happens to find a lot of interesting articles in a (day, week, month...whatever), oh well, too bad. Let's hopes someone else who isn't posting too often can put it up. Sounds like a mistake to me. What happens if someone is posting interesting, relevant articles, with 'good' links often? Should that person be penalized for posting a lot of good stuff?
Oh, and don't forget that this type of 'protection' is easily circumvented by creating new accounts and posting under them. You won't stop the link-whore - they'll make 10, 20, 100 accounts, whatever it takes, and post from them - maybe only one post a week, or whatever it takes to stay under the threshold. What you will do is stifle the prolific 'legit' poster.
If personal benefit is really the problem, then maybe all posts should be anonymous? Seriously, isn't getting credit for the post one of the big benefits?
If you disagree with my statement, but instead think that personal benefit is still the problem (as in the benefit of having a link to your own page), then your defining what personal benefit means to you. I submit that not everyone has the same goals.
This is my first post with a new account to /. - I've been lurking for a long time, and I find the articles and discussions (mostly) relevant and interesting. That being said, I don't usually RTFA, unless it is something very interesting. I find the information posted from the community to usually be of more benefit, and often it has better links to information about the topic of discussion.
I agree with other posters, and with CmdrTaco, that the problem is the OT discussion. If someone takes the time to post an article, and they want to get a link to their (worthless, off-topic, whatever) site, that is their benefit and kudos for posting an interesting link. Cencorship of the link because they are a 'problem' user is a big mistake, IMO. It's one thing to moderate posts based on the content; relevance, dupes, etc. It's another to not post it because you don't like the submitter, for whatever reason. That includes waiting for someone else to submit the same topic. That seems wholly unfair to me.