Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Google Announces Inbox, a New Take On Email Organization

devjoe Re:Don't they Already Have This (173 comments)

Yes. They introduced a thing several months (maybe a year now) ago which gives you five inboxes instead of one. There's one for Social that catches all the stupid emails social networking things send you. There's one for Promotions that catches commercial email (at least, whatever isn't spam-boxed instead). There's one poorly defined one called Updates which is supposed to be for receipts, statements, bills, and confirmations - email related to stuff you bought or business you are involved in, as opposed to Store X's weekly email which is in promotions. And one for Forums is meant to be email from mailing lists. There is also the Primary inbox for everything else, which is meant to be just the real email from friends and such after everything else goes into the other boxes.

This never worked well. The social filter is pretty good. But I am on one mailing list which ends up in Promotions about 2/3 of the time, despite my repeatedly telling GMail to deliver it to Forums instead, and despite the mailing list having no commercial content whatsoever. The filter for Updates is really whacked; anything can end up in here, and the stuff that should go here can end up in Forums, Promotions, or Primary instead.

The new thing sounds similar, but on steroids. More like using labels (which are GMail's equivalent of folders to file email into, except that emails can have more than one label and so the folders aren't exclusive), but letting Google determine the labels by itself. We'll see how good that works.

about a month ago
top

Software Patents Are Crumbling, Thanks To the Supreme Court

devjoe Re:Yay! (118 comments)

The first story about "on a computer" patents getting invalidated is a good thing. But the second story is perhaps even more important. People are taking notice that patent examiners are not doing their jobs. Too many of them are just working one day a week/month/whatever and just rubberstamping their quota of patents, allowing anything whatsoever through the system, and falsely reporting that they worked full time and even overtime, because there is a corrupt culture that lets them get away with it. Exposing this could lead to mass firings, and some sort of system to ensure real accountability.

It's a problem, though, because there's no simple metric to determine whether patent examiners are doing a good job. Using number of patents reviewed as that metric encourages examiners to do a shoddy job actually examining the patents (i.e. what has actually been happening). If they are expected to pass only a certain fraction of patents, this is slightly better since it forces them to actually come up with reasons to reject some patents, but what fraction should they use? Two examiners doing perfect jobs may have very different fractions of accepted patents simply because one got better patents to review than the other, especially if they have different focus areas. Does the patent office even know the fraction of submitted patents in various areas which are good? A better metric would be whether accepted patents survive in the courts, but this depends on somebody actually challenging the patents and takes years after the fact. It might help now throw out some of the patent examiners who clearly haven't been doing their jobs in the past.

I'm not sure what the right solution is. Blind peer review and multiple review? Assign each patent to 2 or 3 different reviewers and call to carpet the ones who most consistently differ from others? Does that even work if half your patent examiners are shirking?

about 2 months ago
top

Comcast Customer Service Rep Just Won't Take No For an Answer

devjoe Re:ESPN (401 comments)

About 4 or 5 years ago, all the broadcast TV in the US changed over to a digital format, and the digital format includes HDTV broadcasts. If you have an HDTV and an antenna, and you live in a place where you can receive the signals, you can get the HDTV of all the broadcast networks over the air (OTA) with no cable.

It has been reported that Comcast re-compresses the digital HDTV streams, cramming them into a smaller digital channel in their cable system, in order to fit more channels in. This leads to reduced quality in the picture you view on Comcast compared to the OTA HDTV broadcast. I don't know about other cable systems. Here is one such report, though it seems to be specifically about other non-OTA HD channels (where the FIOS broadcast was used for comparison).

about 4 months ago
top

Malware Posing As Official Google Play Store Evades Most Security Checks

devjoe Link? (100 comments)

Not sure how this brief blurb with no link got posted, but here is a link to an actual story.

about 5 months ago
top

$499 3-D Printer Drew Plenty of Attention at CES (Video)

devjoe Re:3dnewsen article - auto translated? (155 comments)

Specifically, it appears to be a translation-and-back-again of the LA Times article which is the first link in the article, or an automated synonym-substitution (trying to avoid being detected as copyright violation for reposting stories in full, perhaps, though strangely they link to the original article at the bottom). The other articles on their site (see Latest USA News sidebar on the right) appear to have undergone the same process.

about 10 months ago
top

Ford Will Demo Solar-Charged Car At CES

devjoe Re:Put the panels on the canopy! (179 comments)

Your idea will also help people who commute to work, whose cars will not BE under the canopy during most of the daylight hours.

about a year ago
top

What Will Ubiquitous 3D Printing Do To IP Laws?

devjoe Re:They can still compete on price (347 comments)

But only where there is enough of a market. If you're making and selling tens of thousands of a product, then mass production can work. If you can only sell a hundred of something, or less, the costs in mass producing it and the risk in producing something you may not be able to sell may shift the price advantage to 3D printing.

about a year ago
top

Amazon Forbids Crossing State Lines With Rented Textbooks

devjoe Re:Textbook company cartel (125 comments)

In addition to this, the idea that $50 to rent or $150 to buy a general chemistry textbook is a "very low" price, as mentioned in the article, also suggests cartel-like price hikes from the textbook makers.

about a year ago
top

Microsoft Is Sitting On Six Million Unsold Surface Tablets

devjoe Re:Why not give them away.... (550 comments)

Well, I don't know about stupidly low, but a big discount is what this writeoff represents. The estimate of 6 million Surface tablets comes from the $900 million writeoff and the $150 discount which they started offering to educational buyers last month, and are now offering to the general public.

about a year ago
top

If I search online for my full name...

devjoe Mostly me (213 comments)

There are a few other people with my name, and now that the internet is more ubiquitous, some of them actually have some meaningful online presence. Since I don't post on Facebook much, the Facebook result that comes up in the first page of Google results is somebody else. Still, though, more than 80% of the first several pages of results on my firstname+lastname are about me. It was more extreme 10 years ago, when there was the small insurance company that got one result, a college football player with a couple results, and pages and pages of nothing but me.

about a year ago
top

Personal Audio's James Logan Answers Your Questions

devjoe Continuation Patents are one broken thing (78 comments)

James, you wanted to hear about what the real problems with the patent system are? One of them is the continuation patent.

Back in 1996 you filed for a patent which issued in 2001 as U.S. patent 6,199,076. This actually sounds original for the time; it seems to be a system for providing hyperlinks that could be followed while listening to an audio program, along with a way to jump back to the previous program. Of course, we had those features already in web browsers; whether doing the same thing in an audio program was sufficiently innovative enough to deserve a patent is debatable (and presumably was debated a bit, since it took 5 years for the patent to be issued).

However, that patent in no way describes podcasting, which involves an ability to subscribe to a recurring series of audio programs, including ones not yet issued. That is instead covered by patent 8,112,504, which you filed in 2009 as a "continuation" of the much earlier patent application, one which had, in fact, already been issued as a complete patent for 8 years. Podcasting generally does not (and as far as I know, never does) include the hyperlinking-within-audio-programs feature of the '076 patent. (Yes, each item in a feed includes a hyperlink to where the audio file can be retrieved, but there aren't hyperlinks within those files to other podcasts - not unless they are spoken and you have to type in a URL yourself.) The features of that patent that podcasting programs do include - the ability to select one or more of a set of audio programs to listen to, possibly setting them to repeat, and with the ability to interrupt and redefine the sequence - were available in programmable CD players that already existed when the '076 patent was filed. And none of those features are features of the podcast, but of the podcasting program or hardware device.

The ability to go back and rewrite your old patent to include new features, and claim you invented them back when the old patent was filed (even if, as you noted, you're limited to collect damages on activity after the new version of the patent is issued) is one thing that is broken in the patent system. You basically saw something that people were doing, found an old patent which bore a little similarity, but which didn't have any claims against that activity you could enforce, and rewrote it so it covered the activity, after the fact. This should not be allowed.

Now I realize that there are legitimate reasons for continuations being considered a part of the original application. But you shouldn't be able to introduce new concepts outside the scope of the original patent application in a continuation. This sort of thing should either be rejected outright, or treated as a new application with priority date set to when the new concepts were first filed.

about a year ago
top

Computer Memory Can Be Read With a Flash of Light

devjoe Re:Know what else is 10,000x faster than flash? (69 comments)

Actually, this is an error in the summary. The article says that it doesn't change state in response to light, but with an applied voltage. It's read with light that doesn't change the polarization state.

about a year and a half ago
top

White House Announces Reforms Targeting Patent Trolls

devjoe Re:Seems hollow. (124 comments)

If multiple separate parties all try to patent the same thing, then the idea was too obvious to be patented in the first place.

You say that, but exactly this situation has occurred with inventions as original and important as the telephone (1876).

about a year and a half ago
top

White House Announces Reforms Targeting Patent Trolls

devjoe Re:Huh? (124 comments)

The you clearly haven't read the law.

Section 271 of Title 35:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

The "uses" part covers customers who have bought the infringing product. It is not common to go after the customers but it is legal and there are examples.

As an example of going after customers, see the story about patent trolls extorting money from business who use scan-to-email functionality. There are more recent stories on this subject, but this one from January is what I can find right now.

about a year and a half ago
top

Moore's Law Fails At NAND Flash Node

devjoe Re:It has not failed yet (147 comments)

Uhhh, the article refers not at all to anything about performance. It refers to the fact that the chip is still using a 19nm process. i.e. the transistors are still 19nm on each side, and because of that, there's the same number of them.

Actually, it doesn't say that. While they are still using a 19 nm process, they found a way to pack them closer together, and hence there are more of them even though they are still the same size as the previous ones. They didn't say how much closer, though. Packing the units of the same size closer together is the kind of thing you can probably only manage to get useful improvement out of once. Then they'll probably make the chips bigger once, to deliver more transistors. This sounds like the stopgap things you do when the next smaller process won't work, or is too expensive, and they are already talking about stacking them in 3D as the next improvement. But adding another dimension has huge potential. Imagine how many layers you could stack in a 1 mm-high chip if each layer consisted of a 19 nm-thick circuit and a 19 nm-thick insulator.

I don't think this is really a Moore's Law failure. More like a hiccup, as the new technology needed to continue the growth of Moore's Law gets built up - as has happened multiple times in the decades since Moore stated his famous law.

about a year and a half ago
top

Scientists Study Getting an Unwanted Tune Out of Your Head

devjoe She Loves You so catchy it gets stuck twice (219 comments)

From the article:

Some of the easiest songs to get stuck in your head (as used by the researchers)
Alejandro – Lady Gaga
Bad Romance – Lady Gaga
Call me Baby – Carly Rae Jepsen.
Single Ladies – Beyoncé
She Loves You – The Beatles
I Wanna Hold Your Hand – The Beatles
She Loves You – The Beatles
SOS – Rihanna
You Belong with Me – Taylor Swift

Apparently She Loves You is such a catchy song that it gets stuck in your head twice.

about a year and a half ago
top

Bitcoin To Be Regulated Under US Money Laundering Laws

devjoe Re:I can solve this! (439 comments)

Send $9,999 Then donate $1.

Problam salved.

Life's cool up here in my Mansion tower.

And that is exactly the problem with this regulation. If transactions of more than $N into and/or out of bitcoins must be reported, criminals will keep their transactions under $N. They can create as many bitcoin accounts as they want. As long as they get the money into different US dollar accounts before buying bitcoins with it, there is nothing to tie the transactions together, and they won't be reported.

about a year and a half ago

Submissions

top

2013 Ig Nobel Prize Winners Announced

devjoe devjoe writes  |  about a year ago

devjoe (88696) writes "The 2013 Ig Nobel Prize Winners include research confirming that people who think they are drunk also think they are attractive, a study that dung beetles navigate using the Milky Way, and two men who swallowed whole boiled dead shrews without chewing to see which bones would dissolve in the human digestive system and which would not."
Link to Original Source

Journals

devjoe has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?