And it is high time that the USPTO is made legally responsible for damages caused by patents that are successfully revoked
No, make the APPLICANT legally responsible for damages, because if the patent is not valid, he tries to steal public domain (read yours) knowledge and make it proprietary. Knowing this risk number of application will drop to a few percent. And you can fire 99% of USPTO staff (saving some budget), leaving only a cleaning lady to automatically collect forms.
It is relatively easy to establish, has great application and it has very reproducible results as shown by many groups arround the world. Wait a minute...
Then I asked about the stunt planes, the barn-stormers who fly upside-down. He said for those planes, the wings are symetrical top-and-bottom. You can fly upside-down with "standard" shape only with different angle relative to the horisont although they work less efficient. I am not expert in aerodymnamisc but in general the turbulences above wings increases the lifting forces but also drag forces so you increase the fuel consumption (you can see that during plane landing where for lower velocities the wings are reshaped). Improvements in the shape of wings of planes is mostly optimisation between these two forces. Otherwise we would have just "plane" (well, symmetric) wings and we would change its angle.
Continuin OT: I know this is offtopic, but "planetary scales" ? Please... I certainly hope no one quotes you on that one. Man-sized pendulum is just a one example with what one can easily detect the coriolis effect. You are right in a sense that you can "easily" set your own experiment which proves eatrh rotation (although I would go rather which biger pendulim than man-sized and repeat the "church pendulum " experiment. He cerpainly ment swirl convention in the atmosprhere as this is wrongly as a anologous to the "wrong" sink swirl. Long range cannons are another thing where the coriolis effect is also taken into account Here you are wrong: the influence of the wind is certainly much higher than the effect many many others wrong explanation of C. effect. And as you say, I certainly hope no one quotes you on that one.
The floating point explanation is analogous to that coriolis-effect-causes-water-to-swirl-in-the-toile t myth that you find in so many physics textbooks There is even worse physics-textbook myth: that the elevation forces of pane wings are caused by different velocities of the air flow below and above the wing and irrelevant application of Bernoulli law. I thing it was Zukovskij who showed that if there is only laminar convention, total forces are ZERO on any shape. Explanation is little more complex and turbulent convention has to be involved to explain the forces.
How many people does this actually affect? I realize that their are probably some Alpha and Sparc owners on this board and in the community but how many of those people are actually running Debian? I am runnung Woody on Aplha, and I realy appeciate Debian's policy: RedHat and Suse do not seem to care about alpha any more and Debian is probably most up-to date alpha distro if you are using testing (which seems to be very stable). Anyway you can all the time add packages from unstable. dont particulary care for Debian myself - but this all seems rather stupid. So shut up and do not call stupid peopple that are probably much smarter than you (1) Because they shouldn't have waited until the last minute to break the news (2) What news do you mean? Posts to the mailing list? Because its a rather frivalous reason. Alot of other distro release x86 first and Sparc/Whatever later on. Why can't Debian do that? Maybe because they just care about their users - not just to be like other distros? Oh well I'm sure they will get it worked out in due time Do not you thing theat it is the best policy - release something when it works? Untin then you can still use it - it is probably more stable than most other stable distros until then I'm sure more and more people will begin to think of Debian as a dead distribution rather than as an active one If those peopple are the ones that care only about higher numbers they should choose other distro. They really don't have anybody to blame but themselves They do not blame anybody, these are morons like you who complain about something they do not use I mean they are the only ones shipping a distro that still uses the 2.2 kernel Yes, and also 2.4.
This reminds me what Aiwa was doing about 10 years ago with theirs CD players: in their low-end model they put simple RC low-pass filter (!) after DA converter. Cutters made your model high-end...
And of your ears. Noise shaping moves dither noise up into areas where you can't hear jack because your ears act as an equalizer that cuts out most energy at 16 kHz and above. This is similar to how 1-bit delta-sigma DACs [google.com] work: they output only 0 and 1 samples, but they shift dither noise up into the hundreds of kHz, and then they pass the result through an analog low-pass filter.
Agreed, only that those are just differential sampling techniques + filtering (both analog or digital) to get rid of aliasing caused by sampling which may cause distortion (nonlinearities) on "slow devices" (amps, repros) with limited V/s. But it has nothing to do with dynamics, it just filters out freq. above 20 kHz before they can make any "damage".
we may just have 120 dB of dynamic range where it counts
This is POST-PROCESSING! and has hothing to do with quality of info included on the disk. It is nothing else than little bit more sophisticated filtering (such as used to be Philips DNL system) and actualy all the time they distorts your original data with some assumptions!!! Do you have a mobile phone which cuts out the background noise in the car includind some your words? those are the same - only spectraly adjusted. 96 is the limit , rest is "the equaliser" of your stereo. This is like adding colors to the old B/W film: you are painting grass with green and sky blue because you thing it should be so, but you realy do not know... what if there was variation because dawn or so? or maybe it was a fake red paper grass in the studio - which for B/W was ok?
You are right about the ear limits - so it does not make sense to "transfer more" than you can hear, but repeat after me: on the disk is maximum 96 , rest is your dream and knobs of your player, forget about noise shapping and other buzzwords.
Here is another idea: Make the applicant responsible for the prior art research. If somebody tries to patent the public knowledge , he STEALS THE PUBLIC PROPERTY trying to make it proprietary. If you rob private property, governmental (public) funds etc, you get 10 yeas. If you try to do that with public knowledge, you should get the same... Introducing such law you will get 1/1000 of the number of the applications and you can save some budget money and fire most of the office staff.
Imagine this: Applicant: "Hi, I want to patent Sex " Patent officer: "What a great idea, you can make a lot of bucks! GRANTED. But remember, if somebody proves the prior... By the way, how is your father?" Applicant: "Wait a minute... instead of sex, can I patent...argh... never mind, I have to go now..." Officer: " Bye, it was nice to see you again..."
What about such a law, that if a subject B will fill invalid patent (previously used by a subject A), than A can try a case against B for patent infringement? Than B will thing twice before coming to patent office...
Scenario:
Bill: "I want to patent Sex!" Patent Officer: "No problemo." You (married with children): "Hey Bill, pay me for patent infringement!" (...and there is about 6 000 000 000 more proves)
I thing a classic run-time anti-virus module in the kernel is nonsense as it has to check for special behaviour of the affected programs, so it would needed to be actualised with every new generation of viruses.... What about the PGP-like authorisation of set-uid programs? The kernel would apply public key(s) (one of your trusted distribution, your own one for complied programs + alternative trusted ones) on the binaries. The kernel itself can be authorised by the boot loader:). Of course it will have some performance "issues" as the programs have to be decoded on the fly (but only root set-uid's have to be encoded), anyway the performance critical programs should reside in the memory as stand-alone daemons or the kernel can manage a special "decoded" cache of programs.... The kernel can check also for "known security holes" in a small fast database (updated periodically by cron) and eventually force you to fix holes by updating the program.
If you believe in free software, maybe you can GPL your patent.:)You do not need to patent. Just publish! Formally, once published, the idea is not applicable. PS: maybe Slashdot is "good enought":)
It seems that TGPL license would be immediately GPL-ed without a company profit, so not attractive for initial developer. For the success of a new license two key conditions must be fulfilled:
full compatible with GPL (for acceptance by Open-Source community, RMS and for... some GPL fundamentalists)
profitable for the company (they are not interested in the success (survive) of their software in brutal OS and MS world without having a single penny profit.
So the proposition of a new (c)GPL license: basicly it is a GPL with an exception from restriction of using it in non-GPL or non-(c)GPL code; this exception apply only for the copyright holder:
copyright holder is allowed to incorporate the (c)GPL software in a proprietary version (which i.e. can be sold for use with non-GPL or closed-source software) as long as it is distributed also in (c)GPL version (so the modification author is guaranteed that it will be available for the public not only his contribution, but also the full featured version of the software to which he is contributing to)
if the third party author do not wish to allow the copyright holder to incorporate his changes in the proprietary version, he have(when distributed to public) to separe his GPL modification from the main code (i.e. patches, separate files...). This should prevent the mixture of different-licensed codes.
Hopefully such a license would
allow to use, link (both statically and dynamically if it is a library) with (c)GPL, GPL and GPL-like code
modify the code as (c)GPL; this should prevent fragmentation of the code (only the (c)GPL-ed modifications will be accepted for the main branch, so modifier will rather obey (c)GPL if he wants to include his contribution in the future versions)
still allow to make stand-alone "pure" GPL extensions if they are significant enough to be kept in separate files or packages
make a company profit by selling the software to companies (or persons) which cannot accept (c)GPL license.
The (c)GPL version probably should be directly connected with corresponding GPL version.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never heard anything from her, but i am going to download something...
No, make the APPLICANT legally responsible for damages, because if the patent is not valid, he tries to steal public domain (read yours) knowledge and make it proprietary. Knowing this risk number of application will drop to a few percent. And you can fire 99% of USPTO staff (saving some budget), leaving only a cleaning lady to automatically collect forms.
Roman
As allready mentioned - an urban legend, but reminds me a task for young skauts:
Q: How would you find South direction?
A: Satelite dishes... (well, +- bus...)
It is relatively easy to establish, has great application and it has very reproducible results as shown by many groups arround the world.
Wait a minute...
Then I asked about the stunt planes, the barn-stormers who fly upside-down. He said for those planes, the wings are symetrical top-and-bottom. You can fly upside-down with "standard" shape only with different angle relative to the horisont although they work less efficient.
I am not expert in aerodymnamisc but in general the turbulences above wings increases the lifting forces but also drag forces so you increase the fuel consumption (you can see that during plane landing where for lower velocities the wings are reshaped). Improvements in the shape of wings of planes is mostly optimisation between these two forces. Otherwise we would have just "plane" (well, symmetric) wings and we would change its angle.
Continuin OT:
I know this is offtopic, but "planetary scales" ? Please... I certainly hope no one quotes you on that one. Man-sized pendulum is just a one example with what one can easily detect the coriolis effect.
You are right in a sense that you can "easily" set your own experiment which proves eatrh rotation (although I would go rather which biger pendulim than man-sized and repeat the "church pendulum " experiment. He cerpainly ment swirl convention in the atmosprhere as this is wrongly as a anologous to the "wrong" sink swirl.
Long range cannons are another thing where the coriolis effect is also taken into account
Here you are wrong: the influence of the wind is certainly much higher than the effect
many many others
wrong explanation of C. effect. And as you say,
I certainly hope no one quotes you on that one.
The floating point explanation is analogous to that coriolis-effect-causes-water-to-swirl-in-the-toile t myth that you find in so many physics textbooks
There is even worse physics-textbook myth: that the elevation forces of pane wings are caused by different velocities of the air flow below and above the wing and irrelevant application of Bernoulli law. I thing it was Zukovskij who showed that if there is only laminar convention, total forces are ZERO on any shape. Explanation is little more complex and turbulent convention has to be involved to explain the forces.
How many people does this actually affect? I realize that their are probably some Alpha and Sparc owners on this board and in the community but how many of those people are actually running Debian?
I am runnung Woody on Aplha, and I realy appeciate Debian's policy: RedHat and Suse do not seem to care about alpha any more and Debian is probably most up-to date alpha distro if you are using testing (which seems to be very stable). Anyway you can all the time add packages from unstable.
dont particulary care for Debian myself - but this all seems rather stupid.
So shut up and do not call stupid peopple that are probably much smarter than you
(1) Because they shouldn't have waited until the last minute to break the news (2)
What news do you mean? Posts to the mailing list?
Because its a rather frivalous reason. Alot of other distro release x86 first and Sparc/Whatever later on. Why can't Debian do that?
Maybe because they just care about their users - not just to be like other distros?
Oh well I'm sure they will get it worked out in due time
Do not you thing theat it is the best policy - release something when it works? Untin then you can still use it - it is probably more stable than most other stable distros
until then I'm sure more and more people will begin to think of Debian as a dead distribution rather than as an active one
If those peopple are the ones that care only about higher numbers they should choose other distro.
They really don't have anybody to blame but themselves
They do not blame anybody, these are morons like you who complain about something they do not use
I mean they are the only ones shipping a distro that still uses the 2.2 kernel
Yes, and also 2.4.
happy debian user
This reminds me what Aiwa was doing about 10 years ago with theirs CD players: in their low-end model they put simple RC low-pass filter (!) after DA converter. Cutters made your model high-end...
And of your ears. Noise shaping moves dither noise up into areas where you can't hear jack because your ears act as an equalizer that cuts out most energy at 16 kHz and above. This is similar to how 1-bit delta-sigma DACs [google.com] work: they output only 0 and 1 samples, but they shift dither noise up into the hundreds of kHz, and then they pass the result through an analog low-pass filter.
Agreed, only that those are just differential sampling techniques + filtering (both analog or digital) to get rid of aliasing caused by sampling which may cause distortion (nonlinearities) on "slow devices" (amps, repros) with limited V/s. But it has nothing to do with dynamics, it just filters out freq. above 20 kHz before they can make any "damage".
we may just have 120 dB of dynamic range where it counts
This is POST-PROCESSING! and has hothing to do with quality of info included on the disk. It is nothing else than little bit more sophisticated filtering (such as used to be Philips DNL system) and actualy all the time they distorts your original data with some assumptions!!! Do you have a mobile phone which cuts out the background noise in the car includind some your words? those are the same - only spectraly adjusted.
96 is the limit , rest is "the equaliser" of your stereo. This is like adding colors to the old B/W film: you are painting grass with green and sky blue because you thing it should be so, but you realy do not know... what if there was variation because dawn or so? or maybe it was a fake red paper grass in the studio - which for B/W was ok?
You are right about the ear limits - so it does not make sense to "transfer more" than you can hear, but repeat after me: on the disk is maximum 96 , rest is your dream and knobs of your player, forget about noise shapping and other buzzwords.
R.
A well-mastered CD has 120 dB dynamic range
eh, 20*log(2^16) = 96.3 dB
Look up "noise shaping" on Google to see how
Do not use Google, but calculator and brain (sometimes they do better job than pigeons...)
Maybe you want to try roxy filler, it has that (although on "desktp"level rather than as OS feature).
R.
Here is another idea:
... instead of sex, can I patent...argh ... never mind, I have to go now ..."
Make the applicant responsible for the prior art research. If somebody tries to patent the public knowledge , he STEALS THE PUBLIC PROPERTY trying to make it proprietary. If you rob private property, governmental (public) funds etc, you get 10 yeas. If you try to do that with public knowledge, you should get the same...
Introducing such law you will get 1/1000 of the number of the applications and you can save some budget money and fire most of the office staff.
Imagine this:
Applicant: "Hi, I want to patent Sex "
Patent officer: "What a great idea, you can make a lot of bucks! GRANTED. But remember, if somebody proves the prior... By the way, how is your father?"
Applicant: "Wait a minute
Officer: " Bye, it was nice to see you again..."
Roman
Scenario:
Bill: "I want to patent Sex!"
Patent Officer: "No problemo."
You (married with children): "Hey Bill, pay me for patent infringement!" (...and there is about 6 000 000 000 more proves)
What about the PGP-like authorisation of set-uid programs? The kernel would apply public key(s) (one of your trusted distribution, your own one for complied programs + alternative trusted ones) on the binaries. The kernel itself can be authorised by the boot loader
Cheers,
Roman
If you believe in free software, maybe you can GPL your patent. :)You do not need to patent. Just publish! Formally, once published, the idea is not applicable. PS: maybe Slashdot is "good enought" :)
For the success of a new license two key conditions must be fulfilled:
- full compatible with GPL (for acceptance by Open-Source community, RMS and for
... some GPL fundamentalists) - profitable for the company (they are not interested in the success (survive) of their software in brutal OS and MS world without having a single penny profit
.
So the proposition of a new (c)GPL license: basicly it is a GPL with an exception from restriction of using it in non-GPL or non-(c)GPL code; this exception apply only for the copyright holder:- copyright holder is allowed to incorporate the (c)GPL software in a proprietary version (which i.e. can be sold for use with non-GPL or closed-source software) as long as it is distributed also in (c)GPL version (so the modification author is guaranteed that it will be available for the public not only his contribution, but also the full featured version of the software to which he is contributing to)
- if the third party author do not wish to allow the copyright holder to incorporate his changes in the proprietary version, he have(when distributed to public) to separe his GPL modification from the main code (i.e. patches, separate files...). This should prevent the mixture of different-licensed codes.
Hopefully such a license would- allow to use, link (both statically and dynamically if it is a library) with (c)GPL, GPL and GPL-like code
- modify the code as (c)GPL; this should prevent fragmentation of the code (only the (c)GPL-ed modifications will be accepted for the main branch, so modifier will rather obey (c)GPL if he wants to include his contribution in the future versions)
- still allow to make stand-alone "pure" GPL extensions if they are significant enough to be kept in separate files or packages
- make a company profit by selling the software to companies (or persons) which cannot accept (c)GPL license.
The (c)GPL version probably should be directly connected with corresponding GPL version.Roman