"Computer program code/computer-readable instructions for carrying out operations of embodiments of the present invention may be written in an object oriented, scripted or unscripted programming language such as Java, Pearl, Smalltalk, C++ or the like."
Searching for the phrase "java pearl smalltalk" reveals that BoA has been copy-and-pasting the same text into a number of other patent applications without proofreading it.
No, but you just assigned a name to a programming paradigm that has been on my mind for ten years.
EDIT: since two of you asked. it's not a big deal, just that you should be able to use "it", "this" or "that" with your IDE and interactively (unscripted, or impromptu) get it to name your long variables. Likewise for what you mean by functions and so forth. Then you could say somethinhg like, "Siri, double the value before you pass it to the function, then take what it returns and if it is greater than zero...."
and it should be able to make some guesses as to which C++ block you meant. (i.e. present you 4-8 variations or interactively ask you, "Did you mean if the first value is greater than zero, or if the value the function returns is greater than zero?" Then after all that your impromptu session is not saved, only the one you ended up selecting is.
It's sort-of like Googling for code, but with the difference that the machine makes all sorts of different guesses, and you just pick the one you mean. (When you Google for code you're doing practically the same thing, entering a tree where you descend first by which link you click in the search results, and next by which answer you select on the page...)
I still think it must be faster than typing, but until there is an unscripted/impromptu programming environment we'll just have to wait to see....
y equals sign 2x semicolon if open parentheses y greater than zero close parantheses, open braces...
of course it seems easier to you, after you've taken the time to learn a language and know the syntax by heart. Now do the same thing in a language and framework whose features you want to use but which you haven't learned yet.
I came back here to check on this comment (since it was an empty comment, that's why I prompted you with "why")
And in doing so I saw the rather nice (entirely unlike the passive aggressive nature of reddit) notice to read the approach to comments.
Two points I liked: Upvote what is substantial. Make substantial comments. What would have been better is "consider using the word 'because' in your comments", because people don't (see what I did there?)
But then I saw something I didn't like. The whole "what you would say face to face". You know why? Some idiot tried to use what I suspect is this very "rule" as a fallacy for a comment I made on reddit.
The people running this have some ideas, but they are half baked.
why is it dumb? There has been studies about how people make better decisions about the future if they can see their future self, otherwise people treat their future self as "some other dude/gal".
as if your future self is "another person" that can deal with whatever happens, and its really not much of your concern.
I respect your opinion and don't question the alleged research. But, I personally can't imagine being persuaded to invest in an IRA based on a gimmicky face aging tool. See aerovistae's above comment on the real world application.
Who comes up with these descriptions? I can't possibly imagine what "face retirement" means, and even after reading the description it's not a whole lot clearer.
As in 'we help you face retirement,' I suppose. I on the other hand, immediately thought of the Blade Runner sense of the word. Probably a good thing I don't have webcam installed and won't be gunning for my future self as a result.
I am bemused. I viscerally don't like it, but I can't justify the magnitude of my distaste. The paper quotes Proust with a straight face. But then there is also the happy/sad slider of Figure 4. Major whiplash.
It's a combination of extreme, even admirable, erudition and a very hokey experimental setup designed to quantify the obvious.
It's not as clear cut as that. It's just down to the wording of your claims as to whether your invention is software or not. The question that needs to be asked is whether the claimed invention involves the production of some commercially useful effect.
If so, then even if it's using software to achieve that, it will be patentable.
It's a really crappy overlay, there doesn't seem to be any detection at all... I would think that using one of the "render your face as 3d" tools then aging that would probably work better than this thing...
Definitely not something unique or anything but conventional.
I got redirected here: http://faceretirement.merrilledge.com/no-flash/ I thought I'd had enough of cutesy error messages, but actually got a laugh out of "The future runs on Adobe Flash®. Not really, but this site does."
I remember SEEING this in action on their site. It was VERY quickly taken down. It was absolutely horrible-- a bit scary and felt like nothing more than a gimmick, seemed really unprofessional. Something you would expect to see on Newgrounds long before a world-class banking website.
49 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadSearching for the phrase "java pearl smalltalk" reveals that BoA has been copy-and-pasting the same text into a number of other patent applications without proofreading it.
Is that like impromptu programming?
EDIT: since two of you asked. it's not a big deal, just that you should be able to use "it", "this" or "that" with your IDE and interactively (unscripted, or impromptu) get it to name your long variables. Likewise for what you mean by functions and so forth. Then you could say somethinhg like, "Siri, double the value before you pass it to the function, then take what it returns and if it is greater than zero...."
and it should be able to make some guesses as to which C++ block you meant. (i.e. present you 4-8 variations or interactively ask you, "Did you mean if the first value is greater than zero, or if the value the function returns is greater than zero?" Then after all that your impromptu session is not saved, only the one you ended up selecting is.
It's sort-of like Googling for code, but with the difference that the machine makes all sorts of different guesses, and you just pick the one you mean. (When you Google for code you're doing practically the same thing, entering a tree where you descend first by which link you click in the search results, and next by which answer you select on the page...)
I still think it must be faster than typing, but until there is an unscripted/impromptu programming environment we'll just have to wait to see....
y = 2x; if (y>0)...
Seems way faster to type (or say), and much less ambiguous than using "it", "this" or "that" ;-)
of course it seems easier to you, after you've taken the time to learn a language and know the syntax by heart. Now do the same thing in a language and framework whose features you want to use but which you haven't learned yet.
Why is that?
And in doing so I saw the rather nice (entirely unlike the passive aggressive nature of reddit) notice to read the approach to comments.
Two points I liked: Upvote what is substantial. Make substantial comments. What would have been better is "consider using the word 'because' in your comments", because people don't (see what I did there?)
But then I saw something I didn't like. The whole "what you would say face to face". You know why? Some idiot tried to use what I suspect is this very "rule" as a fallacy for a comment I made on reddit.
The people running this have some ideas, but they are half baked.
as if your future self is "another person" that can deal with whatever happens, and its really not much of your concern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvvmT3ab80
Who comes up with these descriptions? I can't possibly imagine what "face retirement" means, and even after reading the description it's not a whole lot clearer.
aside: IMHO it's a great idea!!! hats off, BofA!
It's a combination of extreme, even admirable, erudition and a very hokey experimental setup designed to quantify the obvious.
Note the second line of the table of data on the google page:
It could, someday, after being examined, become a patent, but it is not yet a patent.If so, then even if it's using software to achieve that, it will be patentable.
Definitely not something unique or anything but conventional.
are they really filling patents based on the work of these free ad-supported apps' developers?
Seems like thinking to create a troll patent is not even required!