|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> appreciated there, even if you do have a valid point, I've found.
>
> Well, the article is clear and well-written, and talks extensively about
> theoretical computer science and turing machines and all that stuff.
> It's just irrelevant to patents, because the thing that makes software
> an improvement is its output, and theoretical computer science doesn't
> talk about I/O. Theoretical computer science doesn't care about the
> speed of your computer or whether the keys on the keyboard are labeled
> right or whether the red and green guns in the CRT are wired in reverse.
> It's hard to imagine a patent of *any* type on a machine or subject or
> process that has absolutely no interaction with or affect of any type
> upon humans once it is set in motion, and that's what 99% of theoretical
> computer science is about.
>
But not exactly what the article is talking about.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |