What is the fastest sustainable web service response time?
in [MFC]
|
From: Hector Santos on 23 Feb 2010 23:53 Peter Olcott wrote: > The one specific application of my technology that I was > evaluating here may not be feasible for these clients. It isn't YOUR technology - you are using pre-existing methods and if you have to come here to ask about the feasibility "internet speeds" then really, I preferred not to deal with people like you who think they can take idea A, B and C with no new non-obvious contribution to claim patent D. What made the patent system stupid is the less focus on Markus Analysis of Patents which use to be the job of the USPTO before 1996. Now the burden is put on others to prove your frivolous claim is justified. The problem is that before if you KNEW there was prior art and intentionally neglect to consider it, you was considered a CRIME. Today, that is reduced that allows you to ADD prior art references after the fact. Again, you have a method, an series of steps. Nothing unique about that. You didn't even THE IDEA of OCR and that idea that you think you would get IP by reducing to problem to B2B which has unique and predictable constraints is LUDRICROUS and FRIVILOUS. GO AWAY PATENT TROLL! -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 24 Feb 2010 00:04 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23mB3h1QtKHA.3656(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > > >> The one specific application of my technology that I was >> evaluating here may not be feasible for these clients. > > It isn't YOUR technology - you are using pre-existing > methods and if you have to come here to ask about the > feasibility "internet speeds" then really, I preferred not > to deal with people like you who think they can take idea > A, B and C with no new non-obvious contribution to claim > patent D. > > What made the patent system stupid is the less focus on > Markus Analysis of Patents which use to be the job of the > USPTO before 1996. Now the burden is put on others to > prove your frivolous claim is justified. The problem is > that before if you KNEW there was prior art and > intentionally neglect to consider it, you was considered a > CRIME. > > Today, that is reduced that allows you to ADD prior art > references after the fact. > > Again, you have a method, an series of steps. Nothing > unique about that. You didn't even THE IDEA of OCR and > that idea that you think you would get IP by reducing to > problem to B2B which has unique and predictable > constraints is LUDRICROUS and FRIVILOUS. > > GO AWAY PATENT TROLL! > > -- > HLS (1) You did not use the term "patent troll" correctly, this term only applies to entities that have no intention of commercialization. (2) Find another technology in the world that can consistently recognize 96 DPI character glyphs with 100% accuracy if you can.
From: Mikel on 24 Feb 2010 05:02 On Feb 23, 10:22 pm, Joseph M. Newcomer <newco...(a)flounder.com> wrote: > The magic number is 30ms. If you feed your own speech back into headphones you are > wearing, using a 30ms delay, you will soon be unable to talk. One of the little cognitive > psychology numbers. > > I've played a pipe organ that had a 1.5 beat delay. Because I play by ear and not by > rote playing of notes, I quickly discovered that it was unplayable. It would take a *lot* > of practice to get that 1.5 beat delay (well, for the tempi I was playing in) into my head > so I could cope with it, and I only had a fifteen-minute time slot on it. > joe > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:02:56 -0800, Geoff <ge...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:39:45 -0500, Joseph M. Newcomer > ><newco...(a)flounder.com> wrote: > > >>Speed of light through air/vacuum is substantially higher than speed of light in fiber > >>optics or copper wire; most of the satellite delays are on the uplink and downlink side > >>due to packet traffic scheduling. A direct link from, say, the US to Australia, using > >>satellite links, has fewer routers and repeaters than a cable. But point-to-point > >>distances don't matter; router distance and hop count can dominate. > > >True enough, and router congestion is unpredictable but a simple > >up/down link with no other delays imposes a 72,000/299792.5 or 240.1ms > >delay at the outset. A typical terrestrial link is 1/3 this value on > >average. > > >If you really want to have fun try holding a simple telephone > >conversation over a satellite link in the presence of echo from the > >other end. > > Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] > email: newco...(a)flounder.com > Web:http://www.flounder.com > MVP Tips:http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Here, in Spain, there's a TV Program where they sometimes do interviews using what they call "The Idiotizer". It's just that: some headphones where they feed back the speaker's voice with 1 second (so they say) delay. They do sound pretty idiot, indeed.
From: Hector Santos on 24 Feb 2010 08:24 Peter Olcott wrote: > "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> GO AWAY PATENT TROLL! >> > > (1) You did not use the term "patent troll" correctly, this > term only applies to entities that have no intention of > commercialization. No, a Patent troll is one that frivolously patents the idea that the shortest distance between two points in a straight line. > (2) Find another technology in the world that can > consistently recognize 96 DPI character glyphs with 100% > accuracy if you can. The prior art history is too deep and predates simple google internet researching. You haven't been challenged yet. Try enforcing it on someone who has strong ethics and refuses to pay Patent Troll ransom dollars. Try enforcing it on Xerox for example. -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 24 Feb 2010 10:12
"Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23Ue5wSVtKHA.3536(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in >> message > > >> > >>> GO AWAY PATENT TROLL! >>> >> >> (1) You did not use the term "patent troll" correctly, >> this term only applies to entities that have no intention >> of commercialization. > > > No, a Patent troll is one that frivolously patents the > idea that the shortest distance between two points in a > straight line. Wrong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll Words and phrases do not mean whatever you want them to mean, they only have meanings that are commonly agreed upon otherwise communication would be impossible. > >> (2) Find another technology in the world that can >> consistently recognize 96 DPI character glyphs with 100% >> accuracy if you can. > > The prior art history is too deep and predates simple > google internet researching. You haven't been challenged > yet. Try enforcing it on someone who has strong ethics > and refuses to pay Patent Troll ransom dollars. Try > enforcing it on Xerox for example. Actually I cited a Xerox patent as the closest technology that I could find at the time, not very close. Xerox (as all traditional OCR) uses a fundamentally different approach. They use a stochastic process whereas mine is purely deterministic. All that it takes to create something new under the Sun (according to the patent office) is to combine two or more pre-existing concepts to provide a substantial new benefit. As long as this combination is not shown in published prior art, it is patentable. In some cases it is patentable even if the combination is shown in prior art, if the new use has not also been shown. I think that 20,000 hours worth of effort deserves some financial remuneration. > > -- > HLS |