Friday, December 16, 2005
Optical Illusions
Really nice "Optical Illusions". Would you believe this? Probably the coolest one (another link to the previously mentioned effect) is also mentioned on Wikipedia.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Winter vacation
We spent last week skiing in a small resort of Finkenberg , in the Zillertal region. Stayed in little hotel Persal right next to the slopes. We were taking
family pictures , especially
this one shows how parenting and skiing goes together.
family pictures , especially
this one shows how parenting and skiing goes together.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
RSS?
I am new to RSS feeds. Tried www.feedburner.com.
Here is the result:
Or if your reader supports ATOM you can directly subscribe here.
Here is the result:
Or if your reader supports ATOM you can directly subscribe here.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Office politics
I have a strange feeling that I have already read almost identical article somewhere. Nonetheless it is pretty good: "Politics-Oriented Software Development (Technology) By TheophileEscargot ".
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Little game
After searching for a Same Game clone for my new Palm I did not find one. So I wrote one:
Same Game for MIDP . If you have similar device you can also try it.
Same Game for MIDP . If you have similar device you can also try it.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Patent pending
The situation with software patents is getting really absurd. Take for example the recent Sun versus Kodak.
Sun has paid vast sum of money to resolve the dispute. Why would someone pay 92M USD when there is no merit in the matter? The answer is simple: because it is cheaper to settle than to prove the truth in courts. That is saying something about the whole legal system and the patent system in particular.
I have really crazy idea: what about granting only patents that are relevant? How could you possibly do that? Simply by requiring some sort of review process before the patent application is accepted to become a patent. It would be enough if the patent office asks some expert group to vote for or against the patent being granted. The vote would be public so the asked experts would not dare to ruin their profesional reputation by stating nonsense during the vote. They can be even paid by the applicant for doing the job - isn't patent application expensive already?
The question remains who would appoint the expert group: I don't have answer but beleive there would be a way - e.g. the patent office could appoint them.
But I am not that naive - I know this will never happen. There are too many people making good money by using the current system. Why would they want to change it?
Sun has paid vast sum of money to resolve the dispute. Why would someone pay 92M USD when there is no merit in the matter? The answer is simple: because it is cheaper to settle than to prove the truth in courts. That is saying something about the whole legal system and the patent system in particular.
I have really crazy idea: what about granting only patents that are relevant? How could you possibly do that? Simply by requiring some sort of review process before the patent application is accepted to become a patent. It would be enough if the patent office asks some expert group to vote for or against the patent being granted. The vote would be public so the asked experts would not dare to ruin their profesional reputation by stating nonsense during the vote. They can be even paid by the applicant for doing the job - isn't patent application expensive already?
The question remains who would appoint the expert group: I don't have answer but beleive there would be a way - e.g. the patent office could appoint them.
But I am not that naive - I know this will never happen. There are too many people making good money by using the current system. Why would they want to change it?
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)