Ha, I knew someone would start off by adding a hostile comment of that form. What can I say? If you had been James Marshall, and you noticed the gold that kicked off the California gold rush, do you think you would you have left it there in the water, because you think you would have been able to see into the future, and see the terrible ecological consequences that gold mining sometimes brings? No, you would have picked it up, like anybody else.
> I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms. [...] There are better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making use of one's contributions to computer science.
Ha, I knew someone who likes/has patents would quickly avoid-justify and deflect the peer pressure and related shame.
What's more important is if you're doing something good with whatever gains a patent may be providing you; but I also what detriment there may be and how much in fact your patent (and others) actually suffocate and slow the advancement of humanity and the quality of life for all.
But you just mentioned that you had a patent, a thing thing that exists to protect innovators from being copied by competitors to leave a fair time to cash out on your work, but ultimately a large corporation got ownership of it. How is this not a joke?
Not sure what you mean. I have been joking some here in this thread, but overall, the thing was one of the most serious things in my life. As to how MS ended up with it, I probably chose the wrong partners for the startup where we tried to monetize it.
At the end of the startup, there was a 20 minute phone call, where I had to decide to either keep my patent and probably ruin my chances to marry the love of my life, or to sign over the patent, take some cash and stock, start my new life with my fiancé, and hope that I could come up with another patent that good later in my life. I chose wisely.
Why do we always have to prove this in one direction? You could take the opposite stance and say that we don't need any patents because look at open source and how stuff is created without anyone being paid crazy sums of money.
>1. You're basically patenting algorithms, which aren't supposed to be patentable.
Hardware patents just cover algorithms that have steps involving arranging atoms.
>2. There seems to be an assumption that anything new is unobvious and therefore patentable. And in computing that isn't really the case.
It isn't really the case in anything. That no one has bothered to patent yellow wrenches with beveled edges doesn't mean they should be patentable. That the software equivalent is currently more likely to be granted isn't really an issue with the idea of patenting software.
>A patent is supposed to describe how to actually do the thing. Software patents by and large don't do that.
That's an issue with particular software patents, not one particular to patenting software.
>hardware patents just cover algorithms that have steps involving arranging atoms.
Yes. Further steps have been done. Its the difference between copywriting the idea for a book, and copywriting an actual book.
>That the software equivalent is currently more likely to be granted isn't really an issue with the idea of patenting software
It's an issue with the current incarnation of software patents.
That's like saying IC cars aren't bad for the environment because we 'could' fuel them all with biofuels and have a carbon capture thing on the exhaust.
In the real world an IC car can rightfully be criticised for being bad for the environment.
>That's an issue with particular software patents, not one particular to patenting software.
Again, the issue doesn't have to be inherent to be valid.
1. Why is it any different for hardware? Hardware is nowadays designed on computers too. It's all computers until someone sends it over to Asia where it is then manufactured.
2. Again, why is that different for hardware?
I really wonder why my friends who studied mechanical engineering have the privilege of making money with their inventions, while I cannot ...
That hardware was developed on computer is irrelevant.
A piece of hardware designed with a ruler and protractor is indistinguishable from one designed on a computer.
Re 2. If you 'invented' some trading cards based on HN members. That would be new in the sense that it's never been done before. But that doesn't make it patentable. We all have a sense that that's just an obvious iteration on a theme. But trading cards based on HN members, on a computer somehow becomes patentable.
You can make money from your invention. There's still copyright. If you want to take an algorithm and turn it into an actual product, provide an implementation then I'm not averse to patenting.
Currently we're in a situation where you could come up with the idea of listening to music 'on a computer' patent that very broad, basic thing. Without putting any work into an actual implementation.
I agree with your basic point, but this has very little to do with the difference between hardware and software, but boils down to the question of whether there is an actual implementation.
Maybe that should be the requirement then, instead of saying "software patents cannot exist, but hardware patents can".
Not even close. Vucic got a lot of people angry by eroding the country with corruption and is now trying to stir up shit before yet another "sudden" election to continue his reign. The man is a bitch and nothing will come of this.
I'm not challenging this, but wondering if it's true; then, why have more British troops been commited to the region already; and why are the White House warning of the events already?
Note that the British troops that have been "committed" are already there in the region, on "exercises". The only change the Brits have made is to place those units under direct KFOR command.
It's not a good look to not call out parties for obvious bullshit like this.
Imagine that NATO did not increase manning, and the White House did not mention the troop build up. The headline now reads "Serbian troop massing on border, NATO says 'don't worry about it'". Bad look for NATO, and maybe makes future bullshit more likely.
There are definitely economies of scale when it comes to farming and weed is no exception. That, and taking advantage of cheaper labor costs elsewhere (like Mexico)
That, and it may be easier to grow in a laxer jurisdiction and transport it to a stricter one, than just trying to grow it in a strict one.
Salad grows pretty much everywhere, but we still transport most of it from Mexico or California, with a pretty hefty set of infrastructure components from farms to hordes of pickers to refridgerated trains to grocery stores.
(It's also not a weed, really, just like it's not a pot.)
I went the other way, as soon as VSCode-like language server protocol was available for neovim I dropped VSCode. Now I have the same speed with modern features too. In the end it's what's best for you that counts, having quality options helps a lot.
I'd for one like to thank him for reconsidering, there's never been more ways in human history to advertise your business. Don't make a day worse for 800 people for a small edge. If your project is special you will find an audience by other means.
A lot of businesses and individuals give out a contact for business inquiries if they're interested in something like that.
2049 did so many things well (great visuals, great acting, waaaay better love story, better detecting!), but the main story sucked so much. The messianic human/replicant hybrid and the foreshadowed uprising seemed so cheap. The original asked hard questions that's why it's still talked about, the sequel took it away and answered it itself and quite poorly IMO.
I thought the story was fine. Blade Runner's story honestly isn't all that good, the concept of the memories and K's self-discovery is arguably better than the original if you imagine that the original barely has a story as per se (but does have a better defined set of plot-beats).
2049 feels like it asks less questions, but wait until we have better AI in 10 years and watch how prescient including Joi rather than a new replicant character is.
I saw 2049 when it came out. I didn't like the original film much but of course was still curious about the sequel since I liked the original novel.
One problem I have with both these movies is that the whole "memories" thing doesn't have anything to do with the point the original novel was making. The main point of the original novel is that the replicants are fake human beings which are not only deplorable due to their lack of empathy but are also rather dangerous, and that real human beings will likely become dehumanized ourselves in our eventual efforts to eradicate them. I'm paraphrasing Dick in that last sentence but you can hear the more full version in this interview: https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=3d7XMnmPgUk
Anyway, I agree that 2049 has more of a plot than the original, but I lost most of my interest in the movie as soon as I realized that the main character was a replicant (which unfortunately happened pretty early on). Great cinematography though.
Authentic replicants like the book wouldn't work on screen, I feel.
The movie tells you K is a replicants within the first few minutes, it's not ambiguous like deckard (eh), the point of K is that he has meaning handed to him on a plate - he might be human.
