Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Annoying (Score 1) 424

"They try very hard to present me with what they think I'm searching for instead of what I'm actually searching for.

Tell me about it!

Search for something like NSTableView, it give you back results for UITableView (since it thinks that because there's more links with 'UITableView', then golly gee, you therefore must really mean that, don't you?)

Comment Connectivity (Score 1) 276

I'm sure it's been mentioned here already, but one of the major advantages of "native" apps (be it desktop or mobile) is that, unlike a browser, doesn't necessarily require an active network connection, which (at least in North America) has been rather sub-standard considering what other countries get.

While it's true that browsers now have local data stores for data that might reduce the need for an active connection to a server, native apps usually are better able to handle a greater amount of data than browsers allow, or are simply faster or have more performance features that browsers won't/can't have..

Then there's the whole set of features that a native app can have (mostly mobile, thinking accelerometers here, etc.) that usually take years for browsers to get...

Comment Re:And then, go after the USPTO (Score 1) 104

My point (which I clearly stated originally): Why the hell should companies, including tax payers (costs of running courts & all) have to pay for the USPTO's fuckups?

If a patent is declared "invalid", then why was it a "patent" to begin with!? And why do companies have to pay, out of their own pocket, to "fix" these invalid patents?? (Please, do provide *detailded* reasons why the companies should be burdened with the costs of cleaning up the USPTO's messes).

Either the USPTO didn't do their job right (incompetence gets you fired in the real world, but not if you're a bureaucrat apparently), or they're purposely gaming the system (I smell collusion). It's clear that, because they can't get in trouble (that BS immunity stuff & all), they can just rubber-stamp everything and let someone else do their work (read: clean up their mess).

Comment Re:And then, go after the USPTO (Score 1) 104

  • See my earlier embedded post
  • Also this.
  • A "patent" previously granted that turns out to be invalid due to prior art? Bad faith/incompetence (both the examiner, and its supervisor for keeping incompetent personel on the job at tax payers' expense)
  • Monkeys... er, 'examiners' at the USPTO rubber-stamping "patents" to meet quotas (which only got 'fixed' very recently, in terms of speed of tech)? Again bad faith/incompetence/ill will
  • Monke....'examiners' not understanding and/or not questioning validity of obfuscated "patent" description and still approving said "patents".... say it with me: bad faith/incompetence
  • USPTO knowing there's a problem with patent trolls but not doing anything about it (including but not limited to the above listed).... bad faith, especially considering this causes the opposite of their mandate to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...' (how the hell can anyone innovate when they're getting sued by patent trolls?)

And of course there's the USPTO pretending it's never their fault ("oh, we're so overworked!"), and those that make excuses for them, that all are part of the problem and instead of rectifying the situation, by whatever means will get us there (have Congress & the Government do it? Don't make me puke!)

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department