Kaleidescape- how will it handle Bluray and HD DVD with hdcp? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:07 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
I don't have time right now to read the whole thing, but a quick scan indicates exactly what you would think, i.e. an attribute associative hyper linking system, in which the items are ordered based on the closeness of association to the selected item. Sound like umm.... oh Google perhaps?

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
if it is so common, then why does EVERYBODY lose their mind when they see it?

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #93 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
iansilv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Because it looks cool!
iansilv is offline  
post #94 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:


if it is so common, then why does EVERYBODY lose their mind when they see it?

Because of the whiz-bang graphical presentation of the data, not because of any unique underyling concepts implemented. The exact same functionality could be presented purely textually, in a simple font on a white background, and provide all of the same weighted associative functionality, but that probably wouldn't get people too excited. But you can't patent the concept just because you present the data in a pretty fasion.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #95 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Ooos, he beat me to the punch.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #96 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:22 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rgbyhkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Personally, I could care less if it's patented or not. I was just trying to clarify what I thought Chris was saying about the patent. It's cool and certainly does make for a good impression on first time viewers.

In practice, though, I rarely use it. I mostly use the simple list view and the collections tabs quite a bit. It's cool to sort through the covers but my wife's one of those people who can't read while riding in a car (something to do with the associated motion or moving horizon in the periphery), so she definitely doesn't like it. Now and then I'll play around with it but I've never really found the cover art view for music or movies as a preferred way to choose content. Just a personal preference.

Jeff

I'm nerdy in the extreme, I'm whiter than sour cream...
rgbyhkr is offline  
post #97 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:38 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mr.Poindexter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Clovis, California
Posts: 7,388
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 25
I will say that it isn't the preferred way to look up a film, but if you don't really know what you want to watch, it can be useful. Mostly I would say when you have several people over and they don't know what they want to watch but have an idea of what types of films they might enjoy.

I mostly use the list for myself and the collections page for my daughter. My wife is pretty much the same way.
Mr.Poindexter is offline  
post #98 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 01:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lymzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: lalaland
Posts: 3,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

if it is so common, then why does EVERYBODY lose their mind when they see it?


Any plan to take this into 3D?

HDPLEX
lymzy is offline  
post #99 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 02:02 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rgbyhkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by lymzy View Post

Any plan to take this into 3D?

Geez, that might make my wife puke on the couch.

I'm nerdy in the extreme, I'm whiter than sour cream...
rgbyhkr is offline  
post #100 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 02:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dizzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 5,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Not a clue... but i might guess no.

For the record, i no longer work at K. My opinions are mine alone

Proud Daddy to Anastasia and Christopher.
Born October 26 2005.

Ob was the delivery doc.

Since i cannot rant on a soapbox in the town square...
http://commonsensehasdied.blogspot.com/
Dizzman is offline  
post #101 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 02:35 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
A 3D presentation, though really cool, probably wouldn't come close to paying for itself.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #102 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 02:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Dean, it really does not good to school people here on what can and can't be patented. Either they have a patent on it, or they don't. If they do, then your claim that they can't is rather thin, eh? You can argue that the patent system is flawed; I would agree. But that academic debate isn't worth much when you're spending money on a patent infringement defense.

Bottom line: cover your ass!

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #103 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 03:09 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
AFAIK, they don't have one, they've just applied for one. There's a lot of such preemptive patent applications by companies for things that should not and probably will not be granted. Just make it complicated sounding enough that no one can figure out that it's really just a very common concept. If we all let that stop us, we'd never put out a product I'm sure.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #104 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 03:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
I doubt that they will have difficulty getting at least the key claims of the patent accepted.

And frankly your characterization of it as "a simple concept" simply doesn't hold up. Every attempt you've made on this thread so far to actually describe what it is has fallen short in one area or another. No, it's not just "moving a set of images from one place to another on the screen". No, it's not just "display of content similar to or related to an item", etc. No, it's not just "an attribute based associative system." It is, of course, all of those things, and more, tied together and applied to a specific application. So if I were to take all of your partially correct descriptions, and tie them all together so that they form a more complete description, it wouldn't sound simple anymore.

Besides, a lot of novel developments appear simple with the benefit of hindsight. Your average open source weenie makes that mistake all the time, when they're busy reimplementing someone else's innovations under a GNU license. Well sure, it's not that hard to develop something when you have a working version of the same thing sitting on your computer already.

At my first glance, the patent describes a complete system: a specific combination of elements which individually may not be unique, but which as integrated together constitute a novel and specific application. (In fact, some of the individual elements could themselves be covered by patents.) Remember, for something to be considered prior art it must incorporate all of the elements or limitations cited in the patent. (Though of course, if there is considerable but incomplete overlap, it can render the patent less valuable.) If I were Kaleidescape I would not be worried at all that the patent would be rejected, at least not in total.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #105 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 03:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
In what way is it conceptually different from any other hyperlinking help system, which provides associative hyperlinking and displays the results in a form in which the most closely related other items appear closests to the original item? The hindsight is not mine, it's theirs. They've done nothing that's not been done a hundred times, just for a different type of data. They've done something that is copyrightable, but it's no an 'invention'. It's an implementation of a decades old prior art.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #106 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 04:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Wow, Dean, you're being surprisingly obtuse about this stuff. It doesn't matter a hill of beans if this is "conceptually similar" to anything else. Patents don't cover concepts, they cover inventions. Furthermore, let's just cut the crap with this "decades old prior art" nonsense. It is not sufficient for a piece of the invention to have been done before---for the purposes of a patent challenge, prior art has to cover every element of the invention. If the combination of elements is unique, even if the elements themselves are not, it's still a patentable invention.

So do me a favor, hop in your wayback machine to "decades" ago, and find for me a mosaic-style graphical interface for the searching of a relational database of video titles. I mean, just that alone, just that one element of the patent. Forget about the content distance measurements, the shuffling triggers, and all that. Given that 20 years ago we're talking about 128K Macintosh quality graphical interfaces, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to get back to me on that one.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #107 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 04:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
I'm not being obtuse. There's nothing that makes it unique in any way because they chose a different type of data to search. Data is data. The 'newness' requirements of patent law mean that you can't get a patent if:

- the invention was known to the public before it was "invented" by the individual seeking patent protection;
- the invention was described in a publication more than one year prior to the filing date; or
- the invention was used publicly, or offered for sale to the public more than one year prior to the filing date.

It doesn't have to have been implemented before, only described. Weighted hyperlinking systems of the sort they are doing have been described for decades. There's an enormous amount of academic literature about how such systems can or would work.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #108 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 04:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


Weighted hyperlinking systems of the sort they are doing have been described for decades.

You might actually have a point if that is what they are describing. They are not. They are describing a system which incorporates that as an element. It's just a piece of it.

Besides, you started off this whole discussion saying it was "just" shuffling images around the screen. Now you're saying it's "just" weighted hyperlinking systems. Make up your mind.

And again, to get back to my first message, this is all academic. Kaleidescape's going to get this patent, largely untouched, that's almost certain. You might claim they shouldn't, and that if challenged it wouldn't survive, but are you willing to wager your business on that premise? I doubt it.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #109 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 04:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
The 'just shuffling images around' was refering to mine, not theirs. That's all I'm doing now, and when someone said it might infringe on someone's patent, I said that shuffling images around on the screen could not be patented. The discussoin then moved on to the associative thing.

As to what has been described in the academic literature regarding such systems, I've not done an exhaustive search, because there's an enormous amount of stuff out there, and they cover a lot of this territory from my quick scan, from fuzzy searching based on weighted criteria to how to arrange the results. I would be flabbergasted if a system pretty just like the K system hasn't been described in the academic literature, if not actually presented as a concept in some science fiction movie already, though I certainly wouldn't put in the time to find one unless it became a legal necessity.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #110 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 04:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


The 'just shuffling images around' was refering to mine, not theirs. That's all I'm doing now, and when someone said it might infringe on someone's patent, I said that shuffling images around on the screen could not be patented. The discussoin then moved on to the associative thing.

Fair enough, I don't think you have anything to fear if you're just shuffling images around. If that were a problem, then the company who makes those video rental kiosks at your local Safeway would be hit first, so you'd get a lot of advance warning

I think you have to get to the content distance measurements and dimension reduction stuff before you begin to get into hot water.
Quote:


I would be flabbergasted if a system pretty just like the K system hasn't been described in the academic literature,

Well, I would be flabbergasted if it were. Again, we're talking about the combination of methods, from the graphical to the database to the mathematical, that K employs here. Google looks a lot like Yahoo but heaven knows they're not the same.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #111 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 04:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:


You might claim they shouldn't, and that if challenged it wouldn't survive, but are you willing to wager your business on that premise? I doubt it.

Actually, I would be more pre-emptive than that. I already sent an e-mail to the patent office asking how one goes about submitting a formal complaint to the PO that a filed patent is not sufficiently unique to warrant a patent. I will file such a complaint if it is possible, to at least make sure it doesn't just sail through without someone actually really looking at it. And I'll post some questions on some newsgroups where people who do such work might take a shot at proving it has been described in the academic literature and see what they can come up with in terms of prior reference I can submit in such a complaint. I may also point it out to Google's lawyers who might also feel that their toes are being stepped on in some way or another.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #112 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 04:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Well, hey, by all means, whatever floats your boat. Keep us posted if you get traction. But Google? Please. Nothing they're doing is even close in a patent sense to this. Again, they might have individual elements covered, which would then make it difficult or expensive for Kaleidescape to implement their own patent, but nothing Google has done covers the whole system. And that is what ultimately matters.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #113 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 05:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
iansilv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah- but it still looks cool!
iansilv is offline  
post #114 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 05:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Yes indeed!

Just to be clear, for those of you who may not know me and/or Dean... you should go check out Dean's stuff. Even if you don't use it, look at it, because he is definitely someone who is going to know what it takes to put together a slick, easy to use graphical interface. I am not saying that to blow smoke up his you-know-what, but simply to point out that he does indeed innovate for a living, as I do (if I say so myself).

So that is why I am genuinely surprised that he would be so dismissive of the innovation present in K's design of this feature. He must certainly know first-hand, as I do, what it is like for someone to unfairly dismiss work he has done as "not that novel or difficult" or "been done before".... that a lot of stuff that looks derivative on the surface contains novel elements that can make all the difference between something that works in theory and something that really works in practice.

As for what I do for a living, well, you can check out my web site I suppose, but unless you're mathematically minded, it will be a waste of your time. At least Dean's stuff is targeted towards a more mainstream application.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #115 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 06:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
The thing is, I just believe that the patent system is really abused. I've never even considered trying to patent anything I've done because I just don't see the point unless it is truely a unique invention.

For instance, Michael, we previously debated the merit of RSA's public key encryption patent, which to me seemed to be a clearly unique 'invention' in that it found a practical way to do something that before was only theoretically possible, but you didn't necessarily think it merited a patent.

Whereas, to me, leaving aside how difficult it is to do something since all non-trivial software is danged difficult, the K system seems to be little more than lashing together some very well understood stuff that I could implement without having to read a single thing about the underlying technology and having no paritcular expertise in that area, but you think that it merits a patent.

Maybe the issue is that, to you being a mathemetician, the RSA system seems a lot more obvious than it seems to me, and therefore less unique. And in the case of the K system, it seems a lot more obvious to me than it seems to you that it's nothing particularly unique because that's my area.

Certainly there can be a lot below the surface of a system. But, that would mean that they would patent a specific underlying algorithm or technology that makes it work. But that doesn't seem what that patent is about. It looks more like a broad claim to patent the entire scheme for such an associative display, not a patent on any underlying, non-obvious technology to produce the end result. The difference is important since one allows anyone else to provide the same functionality as long as they go about it their own way, and the latter stifles competition via what to me seems to be undeservedly broad claims over an entire concept.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #116 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 06:03 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I don't really know what to think. Personally, I'd have to agree with Dean. However, I've never found myself on the other side from Michael that I can recall, so I might have to be ambivalent on this one.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #117 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 06:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dean Roddey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,547
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:


However, I've never found myself on the other side from Michael that I can recall, so I might have to be ambivalent on this one.

Come on, man. Disagree just once, for the Gipper.

Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd

www.charmedquark.com

 

Dean Roddey is offline  
post #118 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 06:12 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
But Michael is just always SO right!

If he told me that jumping off a bridge would improve one's perception of contrast, I'd probably leap off...
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #119 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 07:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


The thing is, I just believe that the patent system is really abused.

I do not disagree with this. But we're not debating how things should be, rather how they are. And under current U.S. law, it is indeed possible patent a system of the sort that Kaleidescape has proposed in that patent, unless someone can come up with prior art that incorporates all the claims made---not just some over here, and some over there. The integration of elements is part of the claim.
Quote:


I've never even considered trying to patent anything I've done because I just don't see the point unless it is truely a unique invention.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're selling yourself short here. I'll bet you've done more unique work than you give yourself credit for.
Quote:


For instance, Michael, we previously debated the merit of RSA's public key encryption patent, which to me seemed to be a clearly unique 'invention' in that it found a practical way to do something that before was only theoretically possible, but you didn't necessarily think it merited a patent... Maybe the issue is that, to you being a mathemetician, the RSA system seems a lot more obvious than it seems to me, and therefore less unique.

I had to dig up that discussion to refresh my memory, but I think you're mischaractrerizing my position unintentionally. I certainly do not think that RSA was a trivial invention at all; in fact, despite my affinity for that kind of mathematics I still think it's a complex and interesting and important result. I believe that my arguments rather were in the context of overall software/algorithm patent reform. It's not because I believe that RSA is somehow unworthy of its recognition as a unique invention or for that matter that its inventors don't deserve to make some serious bucks from it. Indeed I even admitted that PKC was significant enough to merit some sort of special protection against parallel implementation.
Quote:


the K system seems to be little more than lashing together some very well understood stuff that I could implement

And this is really where my previous post is relevant. You say it seems to be this, but because you haven't actually duplicated their efforts, you don't know. And surely you have encountered people in your time, people in your area of expertise, who have claimed that something or other that you did was "no big deal." The only thing is, they didn't actually do it, or for that matter anything close to it, so they really didn't appreciate some of the complexity under the hood that isn't clear on the surface.

For example, do you know the algorithm by which Kaleidescape takes the multi-dimensional "distance vector" between two movie titles and computes a two-dimensional projection of that distance? Sure, Google projects distances down to a single dimension, but that's actually tremendously simpler (well, let me restate: there are far fewer unique ways to do it, so there's less room for innovation in that particular step). Is there any idea why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 20, that the "offsets" in each dimension are relatively prime? Or why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 32, that one offset is "within ln(N) of 2 sqrt(N)"? Heck if I know.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
post #120 of 835 Old 03-02-2006, 07:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Michael Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 10,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:


But Michael is just always SO right!

Shucks If only that were true.

Michael
Michael Grant is offline  
Reply Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off