Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Only benefits smaller devices (Score 1) 217

by ebno-10db (#46656249) Attached to: .NET Native Compilation Preview Released

The raw speed of the code might actually diminish since the .net runtime could have optimized it better for the specific environment (CPU model, available RAM, phase of the moon, etc).

I hate to break it to you, but the original Pentium is now obsolete. Compiling for a specific CPU variant doesn't help much these days. I'm also unaware of any JIT compiler that adjusts the code for available RAM. You might have a point about the phase of the moon.

Basically you're citing the standard tropes used in defense of JIT. Theoretically it can make some difference, but when I ask for benchmarks showing code on a JIT running faster than straight-to-binary, all I hear is crickets.

Comment: Re:Universities should have no patents (Score 2, Informative) 130

by ebno-10db (#46651453) Attached to: Details You're Not Supposed To See From Boston U's Patent Settlements

Federal money comes with restrictions, but there are limits to the control that buys the feds.

Before the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the restriction was that patents that came from federally funded research had to be assigned to the feds. Worked fine. Repeal Bayh-Dole and it will work again. If BU or any other school doesn't like it, they can refuse to accept federal funding. What option do you think they'll choose?

Comment: Re:Universities should have no patents (Score 2) 130

by ebno-10db (#46651159) Attached to: Details You're Not Supposed To See From Boston U's Patent Settlements

Please educate yourself about similar history.

Take your own advice - the appropriate history is before the Bayh–Dole Act. It worked fine before 1980, though according to you, the people who thought it worked fine must have been 12 y.o or idiots. Funny how such people managed to do important academic research.

Comment: Re:Universities should have no patents (Score 1) 130

by ebno-10db (#46651077) Attached to: Details You're Not Supposed To See From Boston U's Patent Settlements

has the model of 'students pay to attend' no longer enough to keep the uni's afloat?

It hasn't been enough in many years, at least here in the US for research funding. There is loads of federal funding for research, and sometimes from companies and foundations. That's fine by me, but universities using "intellectual property" is exactly the opposite of what they should do.

P.S. What country are you from? "Uni's" isn't American slang, so I'd guess it's not the US. I ask because I'm curious what the situation is in your country.

Comment: Re:Universities should have no patents (Score 4, Informative) 130

by ebno-10db (#46651013) Attached to: Details You're Not Supposed To See From Boston U's Patent Settlements

Blame the Bayh–Dole Act. When it was passed, it seemed to make sense. It had wide support - Bayh and Dole were on very opposite sides of the aisle. In practice it's meant that universities are more worried about protecting their "intellectual property" than about publishing and disseminating research results. For that reason a lot of academic researchers are unhappy about it too. It's time to take what turned out to be a bad ides and ditch it. Universities shouldn't be run the way for-profit companies are.

Comment: Suing customers instead of manufacturers? (Score 0) 130

by ebno-10db (#46650929) Attached to: Details You're Not Supposed To See From Boston U's Patent Settlements

Apple, Microsoft, Dell, BlackBerry, Nokia, etc. don't make LED's, they buy them . Hence they're customers. Does this mean that the absurd idea of suing customers in addition to manufacturers has been accepted? Patent trolling is bad, but this is just plain nuts.

System checkpoint complete.

Working...