Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

    The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

    Phoronix: The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

    Here's another interesting thing from XDC2011 Chicago... While talking with Intel's Ian Romanick after lunch about OpenGL 3.0 support for Mesa, he mentions that the S3TC patent is invalid (or he thinks so) and could soon be enabled in Mesa...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTkxMQ

  • DeepDayze
    replied
    Originally posted by asdx
    So is the S3TC patent invalid now or what?
    Haven't seen anything to indicate it is indeed invalid...the USPTO can move very very slowly on making that sort of decision

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
    Are you arguing semantics? I don't see your point. I've already stated that its how you source your information from all the mediums available. It sounds like we're in agreement.
    No, I'm totaly agreeing with you and thereby providing you with 1000 internets as a reward

    I was bashing that which you were arguing against

    Leave a comment:


  • Nevertime
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Yes, the internet has made quality investigative journalism like that which led to Woodward and Burnstein's Watergate articles next to impossible as there is no funding for it.
    Information covers a much broader scope than what's traditionally covered by investigative journalism (which although is in decline is still very present in the uk). Information covers any area you wish to study or follow. Remember when you had to get your dose of linux news in a monthly magazine?

    Politics and current events are covered now at a speed and quantity that eclipse the past. A decline in investigative journalism is counterbalanced with something that's not the same but does mean your aware as ever (quite possibly more so) of the corruption that grips the world. I understand america is politicly a little messed up with groups like the tea party showing how ignorant people can be but I would suggest they're people who don't want to fact check what their spoon fed. For people who seek it, access to news isn't largely restricted to a limited number of media mogul's any more. As long as you have the ability to identify reliable sources and cross reference effectively you don't have to take the word of any journalist. You can often quickly be able to look into aspects their claim yourself. How often have you, for example, been watching a documentary on misc troubles in a far off country and popped onto Google to get further information for yourself mid show? The internet empowers you if you use it.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
    Do you think people were better informed before the internet?
    Yes, the internet has made quality investigative journalism like that which led to Woodward and Burnstein's Watergate articles next to impossible as there is no funding for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nevertime
    replied
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    +1000 internets.

    The word wide web is a medium, not a fscking place to get info from.

    All traditional ways of information, like Science magazine, newspapers; they are all online too. It's what source of information you look at.

    Thinking of the internet as a source is just as stupid as classiying paper as a source, or sound >.<
    Are you arguing semantics? I don't see your point. I've already stated that its how you source your information from all the mediums available. It sounds like we're in agreement.

    Leave a comment:


  • V!NCENT
    replied
    Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
    But the idea that the internet hasn't been a fantastic source of information for people who can use it properly is frankly retarded. Do you think people were better informed before the internet? Don't worry your not patronizing your just embarrassing.
    +1000 internets.

    The word wide web is a medium, not a fscking place to get info from.

    All traditional ways of information, like Science magazine, newspapers; they are all online too. It's what source of information you look at.

    Thinking of the internet as a source is just as stupid as classiying paper as a source, or sound >.<

    Leave a comment:


  • Nevertime
    replied
    Originally posted by Azpegath View Post
    You need just need to read this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
    That's education in a box.
    bring on the grammar snobs :P

    Leave a comment:


  • Azpegath
    replied
    Originally posted by Nevertime View Post
    Of course there is misinformation and misinformed people online that's what this whole convo has been about. But the idea that the internet hasn't been a fantastic source of information for people who can use it properly is frankly retarded. Do you think people were better informed before the internet? Don't worry your not patronizing your just embarrassing.
    You need just need to read this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
    That's education in a box.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nevertime
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    It makes me feel patronizing to have to have to say that the internet has not done a single damned thing to create an informed populace, just ask Shirley Sherrod.
    Of course there is misinformation and misinformed people online that's what this whole convo has been about. But the idea that the internet hasn't been a fantastic source of information for people who can use it properly is frankly retarded. Do you think people were better informed before the internet? Don't worry your not patronizing your just embarrassing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X