Right. And where are they now?
Right. And where are they now?
OK, well why not refute his comments then, rather than engaging in a penis-length comparison?
Option b) is imaging just the light from the planet (which we can't currently do).
It looks like option c) is imaging the combined light from the star and planet, but using the doppler shifting of the planet's light as it rotates around the star to work out the planet's contribution.
Sigh. Independent claim 7 doesn't even have a geometry processor. Filed in 2011, so it's not like it was a good idea from way back.
It's hard to see how this differs from one of their own cited prior arts patent, US7518615, which contains, for example:
> 1. A computer system, comprising: a processor for performing geometric calculations on a plurality of vertices of a primitive; a rasterization
> circuit coupled to the processor that rasterizes the primitive according to a scan conversion process which operates using a floating point
> format; and a frame buffer coupled to the rasterization circuit for storing a plurality of color values in the floating point format.
I think it's probably not that bad. All software out there infringes on multiple patents.
The vast majority will never see a lawsuit for various reasons:
- The invention is not obvious (especially with software patents)
- You're not a big enough target to make it worthwhile
- The patent is only used for cross-licensing / intimidation purposes
- The patent holder would be too embarrassed to sue over a patent they shouldn't have been granted in the first place (I'd like to think this happens)
There's probably a bunch of interesting ways that [software] patents could be modified to make them work better. For example,
1. Patents can only be sold by individuals. If a company owns a patent, it can only be transferred to another company if the company is bought out.
2. Once a patent has been granted you have 18 months [say] to come up with a concrete implementation and sell N units. Otherwise it lapses into the public domain.
3. You cannot sue for infringement of a patent unless you have a concrete implementation and sell N units. If people infringe, you can sue them once you've got your product out there.
4. An annual company tax on patents. The more you have, the more you pay. Tax collected goes into improving the patent system.
There are probably issues with all of the above. I haven't thought them through
Unfortunately, as long as the companies that abuse the system and the government don't want change, it's not going to happen. That's why I'd also like to see some large company get smashed by another. It might make people sit up and take notice.
I'll second the recommendation for VirtuaWin. I have a Linux background, and VirtualWin lets me set things up just as well as desktops under Fedora/KDE. Features that I like include:
- ability to define your own hotkeys to swap between desktops (I like ctrl+left/right arrow)
- ability to move windows between desktops
- ability to control window behaviour (e.g. make calendar pop-ups appear on all screens and on top)
- a nice minimalist indicator in the taskbar showing which desktop is active
Windows tends to only "see" the applications on the active desktop which is sometimes good and sometimes not. Occasionally certain applications won't recognise keyboard input when you switch to another desktop, but you can click on another application and then back to make it work. Maybe this bug has been fixed n a newer version.
Hardly changes their point, though, does it?
Pity. I think "bonified" would be a fine word to have.
If the IP addresses went back to News Limited, we'd all be calling for Rupert Murdoch's head, right? Why should Google be treated any differently?
Of course, this guy could just be an attention whore and made these outlandish statements to get himself in the press, and more press for Google, but dumb, dumb, dumb idea! Also sounds a bit like innovation envy of Bell Labs. [...]
I'd like to think you really did RTFA, and that is an attempt at a troll...
People don't realize that lead is mildly radioactive, and the decay from solders on the connectors or chassis can also cause bit flips. Very old processed lead, such as that used for the roofs of some European cathedrals, has been used to build supercomputers since more of the radioactivity has decayed.
I'm unclear as how this "processing" of the lead has reduced its natural radiaoctivity...
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
OK, I guess you win!
1. Windows in the server room?
2. No-one noticed the UPS with all its error lights on?
I've looked at the listing, and it's right! -- Joel Halpern