101–110 of 205 posts
Patent in case anyone is curious https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US9817662
This may seem odd, but it can be the difference between knowing and unknowing infringement. Knowing infringement results in triple damages.
IANAL — just repeating consistent advice I have received
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a journalist writing the article, they want clickbait.
How can it be "clickbait" if it's in the article? What am I supposed to click on? Moreover, these are clearly marked quotes from the press release and the patent. Maybe this technology doesn't merit an article. But if it does, quoting the inventor is exactly what one expect from coverage. Note that it does invite scepticism, starting with "claims" in the headline. This gratuitous hatred of journalism is seriously get…
> “In the current art, static error analysis requires significant mathematical analysis and cannot determine actual error in real time,” reads a section of the patent. “This work must be done by highly skilled mathematician programmers. Therefore, error analysis is only used for critical projects because of the greatly increased cost and time required. In contrast, the present invention provides error computation in…
For machine precision, I believe ordinary interval arithmetic is the best way to go still. Unfortunately, this not only uses twice as much space; the time overhead can be enormous on current processors due switching rounding modes (there are proposed processor improvements that will alleviate this problem). However, the better interval libraries batch operations to minimize such overhead, and it's even possible to write kernel routines for things like matrix multiplication and FFT that run just as fast as the ordinary floating-point versions (if you sacrifice some tightness of the error bounds).
Regarding the article, using a more compact encoding for intervals is a fairly old idea and I'm not really sure what is novel here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a journalist writing the article, they want clickbait.
How can it be "clickbait" if it's in the article? What am I supposed to click on? Moreover, these are clearly marked quotes from the press release and the patent. Maybe this technology doesn't merit an article. But if it does, quoting the inventor is exactly what one expect from coverage. Note that it does invite scepticism, starting with "claims" in the headline. This gratuitous hatred of journalism is seriously get…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it would be nice if someone, somewhere would do the right thing rather than whatever stupid nonsense benefits them personally the most.
Why is the right thing to do work for no compensation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't expect him to work for free, but I do want Intel (and AMD, ARM, NVIDIA, TI, and anyone else who makes a floating point module) to go "sweet, thanks for the fix" as quickly and, almost more importantly, as collectively as possible. I want this guy to be compensated, but I'd prefer this guy be compensated in a manner that doesn't prevent third parties from fixing their hardware. In general, I think bounties are…
You're living in a fantasy world. You're looking at the status quo: some guy has invented a better floating point circuit, and you think there are two options. 1) The guy releases it to the public for general use, or 2) the guy patents it and holds a monopoly over its use. Obviously 1) is a greater public good than 2), but in reality these are not the only options. Here's some other realistic situations: 3) With no i…
> “In the current art, static error analysis requires significant mathematical analysis and cannot determine actual error in real time,” reads a section of the patent. “This work must be done by highly skilled mathematician programmers. Therefore, error analysis is only used for critical projects because of the greatly increased cost and time required. In contrast, the present invention provides error computation in…
Does anyone know a similar library for Rust?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't expect him to work for free, but I do want Intel (and AMD, ARM, NVIDIA, TI, and anyone else who makes a floating point module) to go "sweet, thanks for the fix" as quickly and, almost more importantly, as collectively as possible. I want this guy to be compensated, but I'd prefer this guy be compensated in a manner that doesn't prevent third parties from fixing their hardware. In general, I think bounties are…
You're living in a fantasy world. You're looking at the status quo: some guy has invented a better floating point circuit, and you think there are two options. 1) The guy releases it to the public for general use, or 2) the guy patents it and holds a monopoly over its use. Obviously 1) is a greater public good than 2), but in reality these are not the only options. Here's some other realistic situations: 3) With no i…
Patents, like any monopoly-granting device, benefit market incumbents much more than encourage new entrants
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property. Many people attack companies that use tax loopholes even though the government does "allow" these loopholes. So if one is opposed to something, but it is formally allowed, one should attack both sides: The p…
OK it sounds like you just want to have an internet argument to win internet points.
Patent in case anyone is curious https://encrypted.google.com/patents/US9817662
The usual advice w.r.t. patents is to not read them. This may seem odd, but it can be the difference between knowing and unknowing infringement. Knowing infringement results in triple damages. IANAL — just repeating consistent advice I have received
Reading a patent is more likely to make you not infringe upon it than to make you knowingly infringe upon it.