Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test
От | Ben |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0311261402080.7403-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: SCSI vs. IDE performance test
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Base-two artihmetic sounds pretty broad. If only you could come up with a scheme for division and multiplication by powers of two through bitshifting..... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Randolf Richardson <rr@8x.ca> writes: > >> They've managed to patent ye olde elevator algorithm?? The USPTO really > >> is without a clue, isn't it :-( > > > It's not the USPTO's fault -- the problem is that nobody objected to it > > while it was in the "Patent Pending" state. > > If their examiner had even *minimal* competency in the field, it would > not have gotten to the "Patent Pending" state. Algorithms that are well > documented in the standard textbooks of thirty years ago do not qualify > as something people should have to stand guard against. > > Perhaps I should try to patent base-two arithmetic, and hope no one > notices till it goes through ... certainly the USPTO won't notice ... > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: