Small nuclear plants: glowing foliage coming soon to a garden near you!
Exactly. Barring some truly abysmal design, there's no reason for keyboard response time to be more than a few ms, which is at least an order of magnitude under the latency of a very fast internet connection. For the sake of perspective, this is also significantly less than the refresh rate of the fastest monitors.
Mouse and keyboard should never ever be the constraining elements in any gaming set-up.
I would be very interested to know how you've actually managed to eliminate 'everything else' (Including yourself)
If this is such a terribly transparent marketing ploy, why slashdot it? Just let it wither and die in obscurity...
I see where you're coming from. To allow patents on systems which have software as a component allows all software patents, because all software must necessarily be a component of an electrical system.
Let me clarify my thoughts and perhaps express my position a bit more clearly.
I think that there are fields where patents provide valuable protection, as they were intended to: my canonical example being mechanical systems. These fields, which should continue to be protected by patents, can often benefit from the introduction of software control. In some cases, non-software inventions are only really practical with software control (e.g. canard aircraft)
My (revised) position is that a ban on software patents is an overreach if it makes non-software inventions that use software unpatentable. Perhaps my interpretation was naive, but I thought that this was the point of the embedded software clause.
I the question I arrive at which I can't answer is, can such a distinction be made in law?
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. -- D. Gries