People forget that trademarks and copyright are not the same thing. Realistically, if Steamboat Willy fell into public domain (yeah right, like that will ever happen...) you still couldn't go off and start making your own mickey mouse movies because mickey mouse would still be an active trademark of Disney. You would however be free to distribute and modify Steamboat Willy as you saw fit.
Of course trademarks are vulnerable to other things, such as becoming generic....
I take it you are implying that your posed question "Gee, I wonder if that was my point." is sarcastic, implying that you in fact do not wonder if that was your point. This indicates that you are attempting to assert that was in fact your point, to which I responded that I doubt it was. Rather I think you are trying to revise your previous statements without admitting that you were ever wrong. Or perhaps you are referring to your sarcastic remark: "Math isn't real science like building perpetual motion machines" to which I responded with "Furthermore, Mathematics is not universally considered a science." indicating that to say that math is a science is not as true as you may think it is.
Whichever the case, your ignorance of US patent law remains quite obvious for all to see. What's sad is you can't even be bothered to form a decent ad hominem argument.
You can build up operators from more primitive operators in software. These operators can be build up from the even more primitive operators NAND/NOR, which can be built in hardware. So what? You seem to be under the delusion that "being comprised of instructions" precludes something from being mathematics. Nothing could be farther from the case.
Bi-annual hardware upgrades? Realistically you only need to upgrade your PC hardware once every console generation, since all of the games are multi-platform releases these days. You can game just fine on PCs right now with a 2 year old GPU and CPU. Just because you game on a PC doesn't mean you have to be a 'ricer' type. Hell, most PC gamers I know these days use laptops...
If by "serious" then you mean "let people use their own damn machines*", then yeah, maybe.
What they could have done is anything but remove functionality from a device that people already purchased. Literally any other option would have been fine.
Patch the OtherOS system to harden it against the attack? Fine! Remove the OtherOS system, but only on new systems? They already did! Through their hands in the air and exclaim "well, it's been a good run of several years, it seems it's theoretically be possible for people to pirate games on old systems now."? It's happened before, with every other system in the past!
The only people they are protecting here are themselves, and the publishers. Nobody else would be "pointing fingers" at them, but they've just very cleanly demonstrated they don't give a shit about the people who are supposedly their customers.
* Well, apparently when you buy a PS3, you do not actually own a PS3....
You should be blaming Sony, not geohot. After all, if he accomplished nothing like you say he did, then Sony is being the irrational fuckwad here.
Sony is being the abusive father who punishes all of his children for the wrongdoings of a single. Instead of blaming Sony, like you should, you blame geohot, like Sony wants you to.
Holy fuck, way to link completely irrelevant articles! My link explains how all effectively computable systems are computable on a turing machine, and how anything on a turing machine is an effectively computable system. ie, all algorithms are math. Absolutely no distinction.
Your link... explains an elementary concept in physics. Amazing. I feel you arn't even trying anymore.
Physics uses math. Algorithms are math, just as much as polynomials are math. You can attempt to preform as much hand-wavery as you want, trying to obscure the facts. It won't change the fact that real mathematicians say that algorithms are math, and have the math to back it up. Of course this is completely above your head and you have absolutely no idea what point I'm trying to make because you are still stuck in a junior-high mathematical mindset. This is like arguing rocket scientist with a child who's only qualifications is watching a roadrunner blow himself up with firecrackers every Saturday morning. I hope you at least enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance.
The difference is that broadcast TV is 'broadcast' while watching something online is 'unicast'. I don't know how much it costs to run a broadcast television station, I assume it is a lot. Once you have it up and running though, one more person tuning in and watching a show isn't putting any extra strain on they system, while one more person watching something online is putting more strain on their servers.
Now, I really highly doubt they are doing this just to annoy people into watching shows over broadcast to save them money, but I think that is what the GP was trying to say.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering though. Like flat-earthers, you will never be convinced no matter how many citations I give, or no matter how many scientists and mathematicians explain that you are wrong.
Actually, it is thermodynamics that proves perpetual motion wrong, not math. Math is used in that proving process, but without the laws of thermodynamics, using purely math, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with perpetual motion. Math is abstract, and assuming certain physical laws, I can use it to say anything about the physical world that I want. It is the physical laws that are important here.
Gee, I wonder if that was my point.
Re-reading your original post, I'm fairly certain it was not.
I can't possibly see a way to reduce my argument any further. If you honestly see nothing wrong with basic mathematical formulas being patented, then you are beyond hope.
That's a nice idea, except far better mathematicians than you disagree.
This is absurd, of all the ways to argue for software patents, you guys choose "software isn't math"? Something that is considered to be a mathematical truth? That is just setting yourself up to look like an inbred illiterate, on the same level as flatearthers or Kansas schoolboard members.
Actually, you look worse. This isn't just a practical science like geology or biology you are sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "NaNaNaNaNa" too. This is fucking math. How do you even begin to deny this?
Slashdot Mirror
How do you handle doorknobs? People touch those too.
Well, you could roll it down a hill.
You assume the installation of a USD would be optional, to be effective the government would have to mandate that all cars be equiped ;)
People forget that trademarks and copyright are not the same thing. Realistically, if Steamboat Willy fell into public domain (yeah right, like that will ever happen...) you still couldn't go off and start making your own mickey mouse movies because mickey mouse would still be an active trademark of Disney. You would however be free to distribute and modify Steamboat Willy as you saw fit.
Of course trademarks are vulnerable to other things, such as becoming generic....
I take it you are implying that your posed question "Gee, I wonder if that was my point." is sarcastic, implying that you in fact do not wonder if that was your point. This indicates that you are attempting to assert that was in fact your point, to which I responded that I doubt it was. Rather I think you are trying to revise your previous statements without admitting that you were ever wrong. Or perhaps you are referring to your sarcastic remark: "Math isn't real science like building perpetual motion machines" to which I responded with "Furthermore, Mathematics is not universally considered a science." indicating that to say that math is a science is not as true as you may think it is.
Whichever the case, your ignorance of US patent law remains quite obvious for all to see. What's sad is you can't even be bothered to form a decent ad hominem argument.
You sir, are a genius!
Thank God for natural selection. ;)
You can build up operators from more primitive operators in software. These operators can be build up from the even more primitive operators NAND/NOR, which can be built in hardware. So what? You seem to be under the delusion that "being comprised of instructions" precludes something from being mathematics. Nothing could be farther from the case.
Bi-annual hardware upgrades? Realistically you only need to upgrade your PC hardware once every console generation, since all of the games are multi-platform releases these days. You can game just fine on PCs right now with a 2 year old GPU and CPU. Just because you game on a PC doesn't mean you have to be a 'ricer' type. Hell, most PC gamers I know these days use laptops...
If by "serious" then you mean "let people use their own damn machines*", then yeah, maybe.
What they could have done is anything but remove functionality from a device that people already purchased. Literally any other option would have been fine.
Patch the OtherOS system to harden it against the attack? Fine! Remove the OtherOS system, but only on new systems? They already did! Through their hands in the air and exclaim "well, it's been a good run of several years, it seems it's theoretically be possible for people to pirate games on old systems now."? It's happened before, with every other system in the past!
The only people they are protecting here are themselves, and the publishers. Nobody else would be "pointing fingers" at them, but they've just very cleanly demonstrated they don't give a shit about the people who are supposedly their customers.
* Well, apparently when you buy a PS3, you do not actually own a PS3....
For the purposes of this argument, they are roughly equivalent. If he accomplished nothing practically useful then Sony had nothing to fear.
Regardless, you are blaming Sony's bad behaviour on someone that was doing nothing more than trying to make use of the hardware that he purchased.
Cute. Too bad you've already demonstrated pretty well you haven't actually read up on this subject in the past decade.
You should be blaming Sony, not geohot. After all, if he accomplished nothing like you say he did, then Sony is being the irrational fuckwad here.
Sony is being the abusive father who punishes all of his children for the wrongdoings of a single. Instead of blaming Sony, like you should, you blame geohot, like Sony wants you to.
Holy fuck, way to link completely irrelevant articles! My link explains how all effectively computable systems are computable on a turing machine, and how anything on a turing machine is an effectively computable system. ie, all algorithms are math. Absolutely no distinction.
Your link... explains an elementary concept in physics. Amazing. I feel you arn't even trying anymore.
Physics uses math. Algorithms are math, just as much as polynomials are math. You can attempt to preform as much hand-wavery as you want, trying to obscure the facts. It won't change the fact that real mathematicians say that algorithms are math, and have the math to back it up. Of course this is completely above your head and you have absolutely no idea what point I'm trying to make because you are still stuck in a junior-high mathematical mindset. This is like arguing rocket scientist with a child who's only qualifications is watching a roadrunner blow himself up with firecrackers every Saturday morning. I hope you at least enjoy wallowing in your own ignorance.
The difference is that broadcast TV is 'broadcast' while watching something online is 'unicast'. I don't know how much it costs to run a broadcast television station, I assume it is a lot. Once you have it up and running though, one more person tuning in and watching a show isn't putting any extra strain on they system, while one more person watching something online is putting more strain on their servers.
Now, I really highly doubt they are doing this just to annoy people into watching shows over broadcast to save them money, but I think that is what the GP was trying to say.
It is amazing how completely wrong you are.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering though. Like flat-earthers, you will never be convinced no matter how many citations I give, or no matter how many scientists and mathematicians explain that you are wrong.
Correction: "The more online parts they integrate the worse the user experience gets. It's a lost battle for publishers."
Way to completely not make a point at all, but sincerely feel like you have.
Cars are free, it's just the making and selling of them that costs you money.
Agreed, I think people typing google/yahoo into the searchbar says a lot though, I would be very hesitant to disregard those results.
Actually, it is thermodynamics that proves perpetual motion wrong, not math. Math is used in that proving process, but without the laws of thermodynamics, using purely math, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with perpetual motion. Math is abstract, and assuming certain physical laws, I can use it to say anything about the physical world that I want. It is the physical laws that are important here.
Re-reading your original post, I'm fairly certain it was not.
Maybe I'm being dense but... why? Those seem like very reasonable top searches for a search engine that something like Windows uses by default.
I can't possibly see a way to reduce my argument any further. If you honestly see nothing wrong with basic mathematical formulas being patented, then you are beyond hope.
That's a nice idea, except far better mathematicians than you disagree.
This is absurd, of all the ways to argue for software patents, you guys choose "software isn't math"? Something that is considered to be a mathematical truth? That is just setting yourself up to look like an inbred illiterate, on the same level as flatearthers or Kansas schoolboard members.
Actually, you look worse. This isn't just a practical science like geology or biology you are sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "NaNaNaNaNa" too. This is fucking math. How do you even begin to deny this?
Those so called instructions are very much mathematical operators. What exactly do you think your point is?