|
Kent Sharkey wrote: What do you get a universe that has everything?
A fiery ending, and a naked hologram that pops out of a cake.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, it doesn't look a day over 12.5 billion years old.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
What's new? I have heard for the last twenty or thirty years that the universe is about that age.
(well, maybe they have corrected 13.75 to 13.77 billion years, but I guess that also depends on which of the twins you are.)
|
|
|
|
|
The people trying to compute it using method A and the people trying to compute it using method B had improved their data to the point that the numbers + error bars for the two approaches had stopped overlapping. What's new is that this paper corrected what its authors believe to be errors in the method A approach, and got a result that is in agreement with the method B result.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
There is at last a definitive answer to the question of why the Windows UI slapped a 32GB limit on the formatting of FAT32 volumes and it's "because I said so," according to the engineer responsible. Plan ahea
|
|
|
|
|
Software is eating the world. But progress in software technology itself largely stalled around 1996. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."
If you ignore all the new stuff, there's nothing new!
|
|
|
|
|
One of the problems in my opinion is the umpteen bazillion programming languages. I find libraries all the time that peak my interest only to find that it's written in something that I have no experience with or incompatible with my platform.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: I find libraries all the time that peak my interest
"pique"
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
I haven't used a spell/grammar checker in about 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more spelling/grammatical errors in my writings. If you are wondering why I don't use them... it's because I read that relying on spell and grammar check will cause a higher frequency of errors.
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: If you are wondering why I don't use them... it's because I read that relying on spell and grammar check will cause a higher frequency of errors.
Only when you are native speaker 
For me, having more is almost impossible  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
By a strange coincidence, this is about when the US expanded the applicability of patent law for software patents.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Now don't forget that patents are a publishing system. You can't hide anything that you have patented - the whole world can read how you did it, your great idea. You patent it so that others can learn from it. That is the very idea of patents: To present your smartness.
If you are on the other side, you are the one doing the reading, you can first of all study it, to understand the path of thinking. You can build a lab model of it, for experimenting with, try to improve it, see how it compares with your solution. If the patent is getting old, but still worth something, you can set up a complete production line, even stock up ready-for-sale products, and flood the market with them the very day that the patent expires.
If software stagnates, it is not because new techniques are published and made available to everybody. Far more, it is because developments are kept as company internal secrets, unavailable to others. You cannot learn anything from a company secret (unless the company is your own). You cannot experiment with the method, because you don't know it. You cannot improve it. It may be available only as an integral part of a huge system. You may not even know that there is any new method, any new development deep inside there.
So develop it yourself! Whether or not a new method is deep inside that system doesn't matter. It is not available to you. If you need a new and better method, do it, without trying to learn anything from others ... the way you could, if the method was patented.
If you go beyond learning, testing, prototyping a patented method, and when your system is complete, with this patented method as a component, and you want to take the step into commercial exploitation of the method, it is highly likely that the option is fully available.
No, I did not say that it is likely to be available for free. A manufacturer should not expect to get raw materials for his commercial production, for free. A method delivered by a subcontractor is raw material for your commercial production. Why would product developments stagnate because you are expected to pay for your raw materials?
"Peace, freedom and everything for free!" was a hippie slogan fifty years ago. I always considered it the parody it most likely was meant as, and shake my head over people who seem to try to live by it, in dead earnest. Especially when the "peace" and "freedom" parts seem to be rather insignificant.
|
|
|
|
|
Except your analysis breaks down because software patents are being given for 'obvious' inventions, which was not the intent of patents. And that is part of the 'stagnation' problem, because of our lawsuit happy oligarchy environment.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: software patents are being given for 'obvious' inventions
OK - you are living in the US of A.
A generation ago, the difference between the patent regimes in the US and the rest of the Western world was far greater, but still a lot of it remains. One major difference is that in the US, patents are easily granted. Then it is up to contestants to prove your patent invalid, and ask for it to be revoked - which is also a not uncommon event.
European patent offices demand that a patent should have a certain "height of invention" - it should display something that is clearly identifiable as something significantly new. Otherwise, the patent is not granted. A consequence of this is that in Europe, very few patents are revoked. When a European reads about US patents being revoked, the common reaction is: How the elephant could that patent have been granted in the first place?
That said: Quite often, and maybe more so in software than mechanical engineering, you quite often hear the voice of the Columbus critics: "I could have done that, too!" The problem is: You didn't! A creative idea doesn't have to be complex, difficult to understand. It suffices that it is creative.
Let me take a classical example: The set-uid/gid mechanism. Today, we find it trivial - anybody could have made up that; it is just looking at a bit to grant rights. And it was rejected as software patent. But the software logic was reworked into an electronic circuit of logic gates; that could be patented! (US Patent 4135240[^]. So, did the patenting of setuid/setgid curb software invention?
Another side of it: Even as an electronic circuit, US Patent 4135240 has no effect in Europe. All patents are national. There is no such thing as a "world patent". The closest we can get is that when an inventor applies for, say, a Norwegian patent, identical to the already granted Swedish patent, the Norwegian authorities may say "OK, we trust that the Swedish authorities have done proper research before granting their patent, so we don't have to repeat all of that research!" Yet they are two different patents, each applying in their countries and in no other countries. (Don't expect them to have similar confidence in granted US patents!  )
In some business areas, if you cannot sell to the US of A market, it isn't worth starting production at all. And you know that if you don't protect your business, by patenting your inventions in the US, you can take for granted that the famous entrepreneurship of US business will take it out of your hands. So obtaining patent rights for the US market is essential - for that market. And, even though a competitor could use your invention to sell products based on it in Lithuania, say, if it is patented in the US, lots of manufacturers conclude that the bird has flown away.
Yet, people criticizing the Chinese for "stealing US patents" have not understood realities. If all you've got is a US patent (you didn't want to spend the registration fees and annual fees for every country in the world) then your invention has no legal protection at all within China. They may produce whatever they want, based on that invention, and sell it all over China. And all over the rest of Asia, if you never applied for patents in those countries. And all over Europe, if you trusted a US patent to be valid here.
There is a great world outside the US of A (Surprise! Surprise!) If you believe that as long as you have handled the US marked, everything else is a minor matter, then you may be off for a surprise. Not the least regarding the Chinese creativity and entrepreneurship.
|
|
|
|
|
You are overlooking the 'prior art' portion of patents. I don't know about China, but if it does have a 'prior art' clause in its laws (like the European link given), they should not grant patents on items patented in other parts of the world because it isn't 'new.' If they do have a prior art clause, but don't enforce royalty payments when that prior art falls outside of Chinese borders, then other nations would rightfully view their actions as stealing.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, they need not have any patent system at all! In any case, what is covered by a Chinese patent, is totally irrelevant outside China. Every country is on its own in patent matters. The coordination of European patents is just for simplifying the paperwork, and to ensure that the different national European patents are interpreted in similar ways. Legally, they are still independent. And you have to pay fees in every country for holding up your patent.
Note that US and European patent laws differ with regard to "prior art", in the sense of how much you can reveal about your invention before applying for at patent, say, in presenting a scientific paper at a conference.
You may of course say that according to your interpretation of "prior art", you have the right to claim that "rightfully", The Chinese are thieves! - that goes by "freedom of speech". Someone else may say that "You are using open source code, developed by others, without paying anything for it! You are a thief!" - also by "freedom of speech". The idea of open source is that no one said that you couldn't use it. And if you didn't patent your invention in China, in Chinese language, you didn't tell the Chinese that they couldn't use it.
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to be implying that you can get a patent in Europe for something that is patented in USA. Reading the European website, I don't get that impression:
Quote: Prior art is any evidence that your invention is already known.
...Many inventions never become products, yet there may be evidence of them somewhere. That evidence - whatever form it may take - will be prior art.
...The most important place for further prior art searching is the worldwide patent system.
|
|
|
|
|
No, you can't get a patent, but the holder of the US patent (and no European one) cannot sue you for infringing on his patent if you make use of it, building and selling products on the European market. You cannot sell on the US market, but Europe lays open to you.
If it really were so that patents curb creativity, while freedom from patents stimulate it, then seeking a US patent but no Chinese will stimulate Chinese creativity but curb American creativity. So maybe the right thing to do, to fight Chinese creative and commercial takeover, would be to apply for a Chinese patent, but not for a US one
|
|
|
|
|
As David says, the patents given for 'obvious' inventions are a problem in themselves.
An additional problem is that patents (even for non-'obvious' inventions) are a licence to prevent others from using your patent, and they are good for 20 years - an eternity in development time. That means that even if I have an idea that builds on an existing patent, I must either receive a licence for the patent, or must spend the effort (and assume the risk) of trying to invent around the patent.
The example that was used in a seminar about patent law that I attended was a bicycle - if A patents a bicycle, and B patents a motor for the bicycle, which of them may manufacture motorized bicycles? The answer is 'neither'.
IMO, the patent system requires some sort of overhaul, but that is a different discussion...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Neither may manufacture motorized bicycles, but both will probably end up doing so because cross-licensing is common.
Even though I dislike software patents and would replace them with copyright, I don't think they're the problem when it comes to software stagnation. Unlike other "engineered" products--arguably an inappropriate term for software--software is expected to continually evolve to meet changing requirements. That makes it hard (Brooks' No Silver Bullet).
Also, no one is in a software business. They're in the business associated with the end product that happens to contain software. Many of these firms see their software team as a cost center. Those running The Business are the ones rewarded with high pay and bonuses, and there is little understanding of the importance of software design excellence, let alone how to achieve it.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Also, no one is in a software business. They're in the business associated with the end product that happens to contain software. Many of these firms see their software team as a cost center.
Greg Utas wrote: Those running The Business are the ones rewarded with high pay and bonuses, and there is little understanding of the importance of software design excellence, let alone how to achieve it.
I think, therefore I am underpaid... 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: if A patents a bicycle, and B patents a motor for the bicycle, which of them may manufacture motorized bicycles? The answer is 'neither'.
Or rather: Both.
In industry, "I'll give you mine, if you give me yours!" is a very common affair. "Patent pools" are common: Some technologies are based on contributions from a large number of sources - a characteristic example: digital radio, DAB. All significant contributors to the pool can freely use all the other contributions to the pool.
If you are not a member of the pool (or the patent is a free-standing one): In traditional industry, it is commonly accepted that if you make use of somebody else's work, you give your contribution to cover the development expenses.
The problem with (parts of) the software world is that developers have built an expectation: "I will make bicycles for sale, and you manufacture motors for bicycles - so ship me a truckload of motors for me to use, at no charge." That is a great way to ensure that the motor manufacturer will modify his motor so it won't fit with your bicycle, using proprietary screws for fastening or distance between holes in centicubits or something like that. (We have seen numerous examples of that in the software industry - both IBM and DEC was widely known for adhering to international standards, sort of ... always adding some twist. If you had bought one software package from them, it would cooperate so-and-so with products from other vendors, but work fine if you threw that away and went for a pure IBM or DEC software suite.)
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: IMO, the patent system requires some sort of overhaul
I think lots of people agree that the patent system of the United States requires some overhaul. Too many people believe that US patents is all there is, or rather: The American Way is The Way it is Done.
That is certainly not the case. European patent systems are generally far more reasonable. Software patents may be granted, but like all other patents: The invention must be new and have a clearly identifiable "invention height". It must represent some real creativity. The US patent regime has come much closer to The European Way over the last few decades, but there still is a way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Or rather: Both.
In industry, "I'll give you mine, if you give me yours!" is a very common affair. "Patent pools" are common: Some technologies are based on contributions from a large number of sources - a characteristic example: digital radio, DAB. All significant contributors to the pool can freely use all the other contributions to the pool.
Yes, but this is not the default state. The various companies must agree to cross-license their patents.
trønderen wrote: I think lots of people agree that the patent system of the United States requires some overhaul. Too many people believe that US patents is all there is, or rather: The American Way is The Way it is Done.
I don't know much about patent law, so I won't comment.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Yes, but this is not the default state.
Certainly not in the sense that some automatic mechanism establishes a patent pool or cross-licensing agreement.
Nevertheless, it is widespread and common to "voluntarily" establish such agreements.
|
|
|
|
|
More than 200 employees in the United States have formed the "Alphabet Workers Union." Look for...the union label...when you are doing...a Google search
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
