Actually, combining both was done already twenty years ago, but obviously the results would be much better now: https://www.researchgate.net/p...

Well, it looks like he successfully wasted your time. Given that he is likely far less scared than you are of losing to the competition because of this, I'd say carni is the net winner.

Publish your PhD thesis under a pseudonym on Wikileaks? That's going to work great when applying for a job through Tor.

It's really sad that you are the only one who noticed this.

The paper actually makes a pretty good case that you need to be careful with operations that seem cheap but have hidden costs (object allocation), versus others that look expensive but are actually made very cheap behind the scenes (buffering). While this is of course not new, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find this in production code (as they claim), so it's good to raise awareness of the issue.

Also, I was somewhat surprised by the magnitude of the impact. I wouldn't have expected the "disk writes" to be this cheap, or the naive string concatenation to be this expensive, even though the result in general could of course be expected.

Clearly, the authors knew very well what they were doing, and designed the code to illustrate their point. They also explain very clearly what they did and why they get those results, so I really don't see why so many people claim it's deceptive. While not really novel research, I think it's very useful to have this written down so clearly and it's a great resource for new (or even some not-so-new) programmers.

I think it mainly didn't catch on because it meant that you had to manually add a lot of markup to make your site (machine-readably) "semantic". Nobody was willing to make that effort.

Things have changed now that web sites are usually generated, having a separation of HTML templates and database/structured content. This makes it easier to make the structure you have in your backend available to the browser, e.g. using schema.org annotations or others. IMDB has metadata using the Open Graph Protocol (http://ogp.me/), Github also (plus some others).

Unfortunately, many sites don't do it that way yet, possibly because they are more interested in people looking at their ads than in making their content useful.

In any case, I don't think the semantic web is dead, even though many years ago I did think it was born dead (due to the manual effort needed).

First, it says "less than $5,000" which I would expect to be "*much* less than $5,000" for the vast majority.

But most importantly, you claim that this is what artists get for "work they did last year" which I also don't expect to be true in the majority of cases. This income is most likely usually from continuously producing new music, not "residual income whilst you do nothing else for the rest of the delivery platforms life".

I wasn't able to find more detailed numbers, but I would expect income to be more driven by recent releases than "some song I wrote 10 years ago". Which means that of the small proportion of artists who even get any money at all, 90% get very little, including those that work very hard to produce new interesting music. Of course, without more detail (how many artists, how many new releases, the actual income distribution, etc.) it's impossible to really interpret that statement in any meaningful way, but I'm pretty sure that your interpretation of "getting $5,000 whilst you do nothing" is not the most appropriate.

FTFY

Do you actually have an example where the differenciating aspect with regard to prior art is "on the internet"?

I doubt that you will even find many examples that mention the internet in the independent claim, as that would be far too limiting. Only very inexperienced (and dumb for not getting help) applicants would possibly write a patent like that.

Ok, since you bother to reply I'll take back calling you names, and apologize for that.

However, while your quote is not falsified by changing the words, I still see it as voluntarily misleading by only quoting the first part, which is really only hedging for what he actually has to say, which is: "If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google -- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

In other words, he's warning people that Google cannot protect them against the privacy invasion that is the Patriot Act. The oft-quoted first sentence is nothing more than a politically correct disclaimer: "but of course doing bad things is bad and Google doesn't condone it".

Basically, the message is the exact opposite of what is so often claimed, including by you. Schmidt says: "be careful to protect your privacy" and you claim he said "only evil people need privacy". I consider this to be either voluntarily misleading or a pretty strange interpretation of what he said.

Yet another fucking idiot using this misquote to manipulate people into believing the exact opposite of what was actually said.

What Schmidt actually said was (paraphrased): "If you do stupid shit you don't want people to know about, don't post it on the internet. Google can't save your ass, neither technically (there are other search engines) nor legally (Google is not immune to legal subpoena)."

Instead of recognizing Schmidt for being one of the few (influential) people out there who actually recognize and warn people about the dangers of Internet privacy issues, his quote gets turned around as if he was saying the exact opposite. Sorry, I'm getting really fed up with the manipulative assholes who consciously misquote him, and the huge amount of stupid idiots who believe and repeat that shit.

Wow, that's brilliant. As soon as somebody dares say that Apple, despite being evil, might possibly not be completely and utterly stupid he's obviously a fanboi.

It's just a bit strange that an otherwise unknown publisher gets huge worldwide publicity for free, based on his unsubstantiated claims that "Apple is teh evil", and nobody stops to wonder if what he says is true.

It might be true, Apple has done weird and stupid things in the past. But the publisher has so much to gain, and this stunt is so easy to pull off, that I would really like to see some proof before taking his word for it.

I'm calling bullshit on this one. Is there any verifiable source to indicate that this is anything more than a publicity stunt by the magazine publisher?

While Apple is sometimes strange and incoherent about its processes surrounding the app store, this really makes no sense. And we only have the word of the publisher of some obscure Android mag claiming to have talked to some unidentified Apple rep.

The obvious and entirely predictable result is bad press for Apple and a huge amount of free advertising for an otherwise completely unknown magazine. Unless there is some convincing proof that this really happened I just don't buy it. My guess is that it's either completely made up, or the app got rejected for a different reason, maybe even intentionally provoked, and the publisher is spinning it.

Ok, you said you are not a lawyer, but you could at least try to know what you're talking about before writing such a post.

IANAL either, but even I know that being granted a patent doesn't magically make you own all prior art in the domain. The patent examiner even noticed HeapCheck as related work! The author has no claims whatsoever against IBM, and the idea to push for a settlement is ridiculous. What can there possibly be to settle?

Since the examiner approved the patent, while knowing about HeapCheck, they must have thought that the patent claims (only the claims count, the description is worthless in that regard) are not fully covered by prior art. I doubt they could be wrong on this, so the prior art defense is pretty much out. They must also have thought that there is significant non-obvious innovation in relation to the prior art. That part is more subjective and thus may be debatable.

In any case, the only possible outcome would be that IBM loses the patent, which changes exactly nothing for anybody unless IBM starts to sue people based on that patent. In any case the author has absolutely nothing to gain, and no basis whatsoever to negotiate with IBM.

There are no rights to sign away, the author can do nothing to help IBM maintain the patent if it is invalid, and has no benefit from invalidating it. And if the patent is valid, as it probably is, he's just going to lose a lot of money and look like a fool (as opposed to losing a lot of money but without looking like a fool if he wins).

No, I did not look at the patent, and am not going to. It would change nothing about the above.

USB keyboard? I thought you had finally found the ultimate use of multi-touch on the iPad.

C-xC-s, C-xC-c

Vocaloid actually comes from Barcelona, more precisely the MTG (http://www.mtg.upf.edu/). The voice models are made in Japan by Yamaha, though, afaik.