hn_decay

9 ms·

31.
by hn_decay 15y ago
>Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? Why does it have to be a "fairly small developer"? Microsoft has a legacy of a lot of broad patents owing to the fact that th
32.
by hn_decay 15y ago
* Superficial isn't a synonym of "wrong". * It is a synonym for "barely worthy of anyone's time. And yes, of course Google wants Google+ to make them money. But saying "they want a healthy, vibrant, non-threatening community...thus allowing
33.
by hn_decay 15y ago
http://www.google.com/patents/about/7620565_Customer_based_p...
34.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Why should they have shame? This is exactly how the system works. They are abusing the system in the same way that companies like Apple and Microsoft have been, the latter just seem to have a soft spot in some people's hearts. We need a pat
35.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Google knows who you are. Google knows where you've been on the web, and what you're doing. They long have. Google told me on my own + page several of the pseudonyms I've used across the web. The "Google wants to sell you" bit is not insigh
36.
by hn_decay 15y ago
By your posting history, I highly suspect that Hacker News isn't the right site for you. Digg, perhaps?
37.
by hn_decay 15y ago
I think the whole of Hacker News thanks you for this generous service you provide for them. You are, truly, a hero.
38.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Thank you for your thoughts. I am curious, though: What is "click karma"? I'm not quite seeing how a humorous response post that puts into context a previous front-pager here on HN is for "click karma". In fact I see that the only two comme
39.
Be Handsome, Be Attractive, Don't Be Unattractive(blog.yafla.com)
12 points by hn_decay 15y ago|6 comments
40.
by hn_decay 15y ago
So if we discard the polarizing language about customers and products, we get to your point being that the more profitable you are as a customer, the more attention you get? I don't think that is terribly challenging viewpoint.
41.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Sophistry : "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning." Google makes money because they have users , in the same way that a television network makes money because they have viewers. Both are e
42.
by hn_decay 15y ago
"But, see, the trouble here is that these users aren't customers. They're product sold to advertisers." The whole product/customer thing is a boring bit of sophistry usually used to slander Google. Google's profitability secret is a very hi
43.
by hn_decay 15y ago
"Duncan Stewart's retweet of"... I am honestly curious -- why wouldn't you just say "Andy Levy said it best"? Is there some onus of attribution regarding retweets? (Not snarky -- seriously curious. My personal opinion is that you blog about
44.
by hn_decay 15y ago
"Getting geeks to dislike patents is easy." Isn't that kind of strange? Aren't we the ones who most benefit from patents? "Do you really think that the opinion of people on HN has a measurable impact on our patent system?" Yes I absolutel
45.
by hn_decay 15y ago
There is no hindsight effect about the notion of identifying classes of text in a string of text. I fully and completely anticipate that patent being invalidated. "If something is blindingly obvious at the time, it probably won't get a pate
46.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Aside from what azakai mentioned (it tends to be large companies that are the biggest culrpits for laying patent minefields), I have no doubt that a lot of people are doing exactly that. The now obvious value of software patents -- artifact
47.
by hn_decay 15y ago
No he was not right. The comment he replied to quoted an example of an infringing implementation based up all claims and dependencies in the patent. It was 100% correct, and remains 100% correct. Someone didn't cherry pick one elemtn of
48.
by hn_decay 15y ago
His very first message in this discussion! http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777338 That _IS_ essentially what the patent claims. Ptacek tried to add specificity by pointing out that Apple essentially added the disclaimer "on a compute
49.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Where he suggested that people who were accurately describing the patent were wrong because they were...you know....missing a claim or something. Yet those interpretations were entirely right, and are mirrored by Apple's own interpretation
50.
by hn_decay 15y ago
"either people were doing it before the patent was written, in which case it's obvious and deserves to die, or it was never done before, in which case it doesn't matter how obvious it seems in retrospect." This isn't necessarily true. There
51.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Good fight? I'm fairly sure at this point Ptacek realizes that he was wrong. So wrong that Apple's own self-serving explanation of the patent is identical to the root explanation that caused so much of this discussion. You insult this commu
52.
by hn_decay 15y ago
This is exactly the impression I took from Ptacek's post. It is condescending and remarkably offers no counterpoint but instead deals in vagaries and innuendo. If someone wants to discount an opinion about a patent, they have the patent at
53.
by hn_decay 15y ago
To a degree, yes absolutely. The overwhelming majority of software developers, I suspect (invented stat), are against software patents, and the few who aren't suffer the illusion that deep in the obtuse language of patents there really is s
54.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Could you please explain what this patent entails then? Too many times discussions on here have been shortcircuited by claims that the complainant just doesn't understand patents. The discussion fizzles and the absurdist situation with soft
55.
by hn_decay 15y ago
I was replying to the context of the post, and specifically spoke to horizontal scalability so I am confused that you felt it appropriate to "correct" that. Having said that, hundreds of millions of records equals a small dataset. I still d
56.
by hn_decay 15y ago
If they are joining across partitions, then perhaps. If they are forced to localize data to make it joinable, whereas doing the "join" at the app level makes it more horizontally scalable, then that might be an impact. However against a sin
57.
by hn_decay 15y ago
Benford Law applies to anything where values appreciate or depreciate exponentially. Kind of weird to see it relate to passcodes (where it isn't really Benford's Law at all, but instead is simply numeric proximity), but for monetary values,