Patents on Bronze Age Technology

May 10th, 2013

This here is from Apple’s Slide-to-Unlock patent, which is currently being invalidated.
Slid to Unlock Patent
However, the question remains why this could be granted in the first place. Laziness? A case of “it said computer, so I turned off my brain”? Or job-blindness “I couldn’t find any prior art in the patent database”?

Because the amount of prior art is actually staggering. This here is one of the earliest I could casually find:
 Abydos King List. Temple of Seti I, Abydos
Yes, it’s hieroglyphs, and they’re from roughly 1290 B.C. The topmost hieroglyph is a “z” (or hard “s”), and the symbol is that of a door bolt. And since hieroglyphs are rather old, and Seti I. by no means one of the early pharaohs, this means there’s most probably much older evidence out there for “slide-to-unlock”.

And I’d wager there’s so much more of this crap out there. Chances are very slim that this is an isolated case, this is most probably endemic, system inherent.

Your name is “Windows User” and your scientific Paper is called “Microsoft Word – Untitled1”

April 20th, 2013

At least that is what I get from the metadata in your publication.

Google finds about 250’000 of these papers. It gets much worse if you only search for documents called “untitled1”. Not just the documents themselves have this meta-information, but all kinds of conversions, to html, and to pdf as well.

Sometimes, to make the whole thing even more ironic, the publisher has added his own information — but neither the title, nor the author.

Yes, metadata is a kind of a pet issue for me, and I’ve even written about How to Enter EPUB Metadata, apart from also having written Software to fix metadata in PDF- and epub-files (epub-meta/epub-rename and exif-meta/exif-rename. The latter works for PDF; the name comes from exiftool, altough technically the PDF metadata is XMP).

But still, if your paper should be worth anything, it should be worth to be found, and this also means worth being provided with accurate meta-information.

Librarians either work with an ISBN, and if no ISBN can be found (because it was published before 1969, or because no ISBN was ever registered), they need the following to correctly identify a work:

  • Author
  • Title
  • Publishing Year
  • Publisher

So you should take care that at least the first three of those are correctly filled in. If you’re doing a paper or book in the course of your work or study and publish it on the internet, consider entering the university or company as publisher.

Voices against the patent system: The Economist 1851

April 1st, 2013

When considering modern political debates, it always makes sense to go back, and consider where these laws come from. And with patents, it turns out, just about everything said today by critics of the patent system was already voiced more than 150 years ago.

I managed to find the archive for this piece here, OCR’d it and corrected it manually. the spelling and rather weird placement of semicolons and double quotes has been preserved from the original.

1851.] THE ECONOMIST. 811

AMENDMENT OF THE PATENT LAWS.

THE measure for amending the Patent Laws, which is about to be
discussed in the House of Commons, was very fully described by Lord
Granville when he moved the committee on the bill on the 1st inst. It
will abolish useless offices, and by requiring accurate specifications,
will prevent many frauds now practised ; it will give protection from
the date of application by a provisional registration, abolish the
system of caveats, and make all patented inventions easy of access
to the public. It will make one patent valid for the United Empire,
instead of requiring, as at present, one for England, one for Scotland,
and one for Ireland, and reduce the number of offices now concerned in
granting patents from eight to two — the Great Seal Patent Office, and an
office to be created of the nature of the Record (Attorney-General’s)
Office. The petition for a patent must be left at the Great Seal Office,
accompanied by a specification, in order to avoid the evil now very
common of schemers petitioning for a patent, and spending the six months
allowed for making the specification in appropriating some inventions to
themselves of which they have heard or got a glimpse. On depositing the
specification and paying 5£, the patentee will obtain complete protection
for six months, so that the merit of the invention may in that time be
tested. Good inventions will find a market, and less time and money than
at present will be wasted on worthless schemes. By abolishing caveats,
fraud will be avoided. At present schemers enter caveats when there is a
great probability that something useful is about to be brought forward ;
claim priority over the real inventor, and harass him or cheat him out
of his expected reward. Instead of inviting by such means an envious or
a designing man to oppose a modest and successful inventor, an invention
will be referred to scientific examiners, the title of the patent will
be advertised, and those who object to its being granted will have an
opportunity of stating their objections. Between them and the claimants,
the examiners will decide. To give a remedy against any injustice
committed by the examiners, an appeal will lie to the law officers of
the Crown.

Another improvement in the present law is to distribute the payment
for the patent, now required to be paid at once, over a period of
seven years. One payment of 20£ fees and 5£ stamps is to be made at the
commencement of the patent ; another of 40£ fees and 10£ stamps at the
end of the third year ; and at the end of the seventh year, 80£ fees
and 20£ stamps. If the invention should turn out useful, the larger
sums required at the second and third periods will be readily paid ;
and if it should not be useful, the failure to pay the second and third
instalments will void the patent, the pockets of individuals will not be
emptied to their disadvantage or ruin, and the accumulation of useless
patents will be prevented. By another clause in the bill, the publication
of an invention in a foreign country or in one of our colonies, to which
the patent laws are not extended, is considered as publication at home,
and to have a similar effect in preventing the grant of a patent. The
mere importation of an invention will not give a claim to monopolise
its advantages. Such are the leading features of the new measure,
which will be a great improvement on the existing law.

Only one of the many witnesses examined before the select committee
to which the bill was referred, advocated the present system, and he
is interested in its continuance. Some of them wished the measure to go
further but as far as it goes all the other witnesses approve of it. They
were chiefly persons connected with patents, and favourable to the
principle of the old and the new law. Before the committee no witnesses
were called, according to custom, on behalf of the public, though patents
are described as bargains between inventors and the public.
For a knowledge of their inventions, it consents to give them a monopoly
for a certain period. How its interests can be represented before such a
committee, who is at once wise enough to know the interests of the public,
and is sufficiently confided in to be its witness, we are not aware, and
the public interest was left, of course, to the care of the committee,
having, as the rule, no other evidence placed before it by such an
inquiry than that of partial and interested persons. In running over
what they said, nothing strikes us more forcibly than the many tricks
and frauds to which the patent system gives rise. Besides the caveats,
by which one man attempts wrongly to appropriate to himself the bounty
which the State gives for invention and which properly belongs to another,
the granting patents “inflames cupidity,” excites fraud, stimulates men
to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public,
begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits,
bestows rewards on the wrong persons, makes men ruin themselves for the
sake of getting the privileges of a patent. Patents are like lotteries,
in which there are a few prizes and a great many blanks. Comprehensive
patents are taken out by some parties, for the purpose of stopping
inventions, or appropriating the fruits of the inventions of others,
&c. Such Consequences, more resembling the smuggling and fraud caused
by an ill-advised tax than anything else, cause a strong suspicion. that
the principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just.

We read, therefore, with great pleasure, Earl Granville’s manly
declaration, that ” he had gone into the committee
” with some doubt, and he was sorry to say, such was the
” obstinacy of his nature, that all the evidence in favour and
” against had sent him forth confirmed in the belief that it
” was inadvisable for the public, of no advantage for the inventor,
” and wrong in principle, to have any patents for inventions at all.”
That conclusion is not less remarkable than correct ; though we
are inclined to be somewhat sceptical as to the following
assertion by the Noble Earl, that “if the whole country were polled, the
great mass of the people would be in favour of the Patent Laws.” Such a
conclusion is naturally inspired by living for the moment in an atmosphere
of inventors and patent agents ; but believing, like the Noble Lord,
that the principle of such laws is erroneous, we have confidence in the
intelligence and reason of the community, and cannot so readily admit
that which. appears to us to be obviously wrong is generally approved
of. What the community requires is, that inventors be rewarded ; that
skilful men who contribute to the progress and improvement of society
shall he well paid for their exertions. The Patent Laws are supported
because it is erroneously supposed that they are means to this end. It
is only necessary to show, as Earl Granville and the inquiries of the
committee have shown, that they completely fail to answer this purpose,
to disabuse the community of the prejudice in their favour. To poll
the community on such a question, the arguments pro and con should be
placed before it, and from them it would ratify Earl Granville’s view,
and decide against all Patent Laws.

From Mr Ricardo’s evidence before the Lord’s committee, they would
learn, whatever attributes imagination may subsequently have given to
the grant of patents, that it was intended at its origin merely to
raise a revenue. To encourage inventors and promote invention were
after and secondary considerations, more like pretexts to justify a
wrong than the real grounds of the measure. That taxing inventions can
tend to promote them is not agreeable to the common understanding of the
influence of taxation. James the 1st raised 200,000£ a year by granting
patents. At present about five hundred patents are taken out every year;
the expense of each patent is about 350£, or a tax of about 175,000£
is annually levied on the grant of patents. To encourage invention it
is very heavily taxed. Only a few patents are very profitable, not more
probably than 1 per cent.; and by the Patent Laws inventors are annually
mulcted, independently of the sums they are obliged. to disburse for
specifications, &c., &c., of upwards of 170,000£. The State in return
for this confers on inventors nothing but what they. actually before
posseseed — the right to use their invention., and recover by its use
from the bulk of the community, if they can, the cost of their invention,
and the money the State has taken from them. All that the State does and
can do, is to promise that no, other person than the inventor shall put
his invention into use; but the State. as we know from experience, cannot
fulfil its promise, and cannot with its utmost power ensure an inventor
a return of one sixpence for his disbursements. The power to recover
them from the rest of the community depends entirely on the utility of
the invention, which exists wholly irrespective of any guarantee from
the State. It is, therefore, one of the delusions greediness fostered
by the Patent Laws, to suppose that the State can ensure an inventor,
by a patent, a certain reward for his invention.

From the evidence of other gentlemen the public will learn that patents
are artificial stimuli to improvident exertions ; that they cheat people by
promising what they cannot perform ; that they rarely give security to
really good inventions, and elevate into importance a number of trifles ;
that they much more impede than promote invention ; that most great
modern improvements, such as mule-spinning, lighting streets with gas,
travelling by railroads, and adapting steam to ocean navigation, like
the inventions of arithmetic and
printing in ancient times, were introduced independently of the influence
of patents ; and that patents impoverish, not enrich inventors. In fact,
the whole of the evidence lands us in this conclusion, that patents
are, as Mr Brunel states, productive of
” unmixed evil to every party connected with them, those for the benefit
of whom they are given and the public.” The advocates of the patent
system — the societies which are getting up all the agitation on the
subject, admit this — they complain of it. The only difference between
them and Mr Brunel, Lord Granville, Mr Lloyd, and others is, that they
attribute all the evils, which they acknowledge, to our peculiar Patent
Laws, and they suppose that by some improvement in the law these evils
would be avoided.; while the other gentlemen justly suppose that the evils
are inherent in the system itself, and cannot be got rid of by any change
in the terms and form of the law. That the Patent Laws, as they exist,
cause immense mischief to inventors and the public — that they are prolific
of expense, litigation, and fraud, all are agreed; and it is quite proper
therefore to amend the laws, that further experience of an improved law
may demonstrate to the most sceptical the real source of the evil. That
kind of practical conclusion will alone satisfy the inventors and
public. With Lord Granville, therefore, we think that the improved law,
such as the inventors and the societies and the public demand, or is
supposed to demand, should be passed ; at the same time we agree with
the Noble Lord, and the very respectable authorities he referred to,
that the principle of the law is erroneous, that the system of patents
is altogether wrong, and that no possible good can ever come of a Patent
Law, however admirably it may be framed.

The principle of such a law is to bestow on. one individual the exclusive
use of some particular instrument or object which he claims to have
discovered or invented. As long as he uses the invention himself or
for his own gratification, no interference is required ; it is only
asked for to prevent some other persons from using his invention. An
essential part of such a law, therefore — its main principle — is to
impose restraints and restrictions on all others than the inventor. On
him it confers nothing positive, it only imposes restrictions on others
for his presumed advantage. To them it does a certain injury ; on him it
confers only a contingent and doubtful benefit ; and before any such law
ought to be passed, a rigid inquiry is necessary in every individual case,
whether the probable benefit to the individual will outweigh the certain
injury to society. When patents are granted for the purpose of raising a
revenue the case is different. But when they are granted for the advantage
of individuals, such an inquiry is absolutely necessary. Accordingly,
under the old law a reference was made to the law officers of the Crown
for this purpose. Caveats were allowed and a host Of regulations were
adopted to ensure the preliminary examination. Under the new law the
duty is to be performed by a board of examiners.

A preliminary inquiry of this kind is adopted in the United States,
in Prussia, and in Austria ; but in France, where the grant of patents
is regarded only as a matter of revenue, any man may have a patent for
any thing he chooses, on paying a certain stipulated sum, leaving the
question of the validity of his claim to the invention to be settled
by a contest with his fellow-citizens before the ordinary tribunals,
should any one question his patent. In England, too, the inquiry has
been, in practice, limited to ascertain whether the new patent claimed
infringed on some previous patent. But the right of patentees are only
thought of as part of the rights of the general public, and it is against
the whole public that the privileges of every individual patentee are
guaranteed, as well as against other patentees. The principle involved
in the inquiry is the propriety of granting the claims of the inventor to
the exclusive use of his invention as against the whole society. Before
granting his claims an inquiry into them is indispensable, and the new
law, in order to secure a full inquiry, appoints a tribunal of appeal,
should the examiners not satisfy the claimants.

This circumstance shows that what is called the right of property
in inventions — the right, namely of an inventor to exclude every other
person from using his invention after it has been made known — is different
from most other rights of property. It resembles, certainly, some other
exclusive uses created by Government, but they constitute only a small
part of the property of all the individuals of a nation; are, in all
cases, more privileges than rights; and even in them it is sufficient to
establish the right that the individual is in possession. No previous
inquiry is necessary to confer it on him, and inquiry only becomes
necessary if an adverse claim be made.

It is the very nature of knowledge and skill, totally distinct from most
kinds of property, to be improved and extended by being imparted. To
limit the exclusive use of knowledge and skill to one person, as is done
in degree by the Patent Laws, is, in fact, to take measures to stop their
growth. Before the privilege to use exclusively any particular species of
knowledge and skill, which by mere inspection can be acquired by others,
be conferred by a law on any individual, a strong case must be made
out that the exclusive use is more for the advantage of society than a
free participation in it for all. If a right to such exclusive use were
a natural right of property, like the right of the savage to own the
game he has run down and begun to cook, no considerations of fancied
expediency would lead us to oppose it. But it is no such
right, and those who clamour for the exclusive use, and those who bestow
it, are the persons who fancy an expediency that experience proves not
to exist. Far from there existing in any individual a natural right,
or even power to confine to himself exclusively any knowledge or
skill, by using which he may convey that knowledge to other persons,
or enable them to acquire the skill; there exists, on the contrary,
a natural right in every individual to use any knowledge or skill he
acquires from beholding it in others ; and there is, moreover, a strong
desire implanted in most men for the wisest of purposes, as a means of
promoting the general improvement, to imitate and use any knowledge or
skill they acquire by inspection or observation. We deny, therefore,
that the claims made by inventors to the exclusive use of inventions
is a right of property ; and we deny, on the broad general principle,
that the utmost diffusion of knowledge is advantageous to society,
that it can ever be expedient to bestow patents on individuals for the
exclusive use of inventions.

The only doubt that can arise springs from the supposition, that an
individual may discover something of such pre-eminent importance
that society will be injured if he be not encouraged by a Patent Law
to make his discovery known — to inform the public of his secret, and
receive in return, as one of the witnesses expressed it, protection
from robbery. Such a statement reminds us of the “Long Range” of Captain
Warner ; but the conclusion to be deduced from that case, and probably
all similar cases is, that it was of no real importance, and that society
would not be in the least injured though all such secrets died with their
possessors. It is more conclusive, because more general against all such
suppositions, that nearly all useful inventions depend less on any
individual than on the progress of society. A want is felt, as stated
by one of the witnesses ; ingenuity is directed to supply it ; and the
consequence is, that a great number of suggestions or inventions of a
similar kind come to light. ” The ideas of men,” said Mr Ricardo, ” are
set in motion by exactly the same circumstances.” So we find continually
a great number of similar patents taken out about the same time. Thus the
want suggests the invention, and though the State should not reward him
who might be lucky enough to be the first to hit on the thing required,
the want growing from society, and not from. the individual or from the
Government, would most certainly produce the required means of gratifying
it. The notion, therefore, that any individual discovers secrets which
it would be very advantageous for society to know ; that if he were
not artificially rewarded for discovering them that they would never be
known — that society would for ever want his peculiar kind of knowledge ;
and that, because it does not reward the possessors of such secrets,
it will lose a great number of such valuable pieces of knowledge, are all
delusions. The progress of knowledge, and the progress of invention and
discovery, like the progress of population and the progress of society,
have their ordained and settled course, which cannot be hastened,
though perhaps it may be retarded, by Patent Laws.

We say thus much in support of the very enlightened views which Earl
Granville has taken on this question, and which are shared by the Lord
Chief Justice of England, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the
Master of the Rolls, Mr Ricardo, Mr Brunel, Mr Cubitt, Mr Lloyd, and a
number of gentlemen of the highest eminence, who have taken the trouble to
study the subject. We have already discussed it at considerable length
on Dec. 21, 1850 and Feb. 1, and we can only be gratified at finding our
conclusions against the presumed rights of inventors supported by such
very high authority.

The source is The Economist Historical Archive, but apparently it now requires a login. So much about “Open Access” and “preserving history” or even “respecting the public domain”. So it’s altogether more important that I post this here.

I also made the two respective pages available as PDF from the original scans: The Economist, June 26, 1851

The copyright-status of this is of course public domain.

Minecraft: Mob Factory

December 18th, 2012

I noticed some time ago that multiple spawners could be active at the same time, as long as the player was within 16 blocks of each of them. However, if too many mobs of the same kind the spawner spawns were within 9x16x16 around the spawner, it would stop spawning after 6 mobs or so.

So in principle, it must be possible to have a lot, maybe 8, spawners, completely with their delivery- and killing-system within a sphere of 16 blocks around the player, all churning out mobs and items. So that’s where I started:

In green you can see the 16 block sphere around where the player would be standing, in yellow are the 9x16x16 areas where no mobs of the same type should be (and consequently, the area any spawned mobs need to leave as soon as possible). The cyan circle is the ground layout, and of no consequence. The spawners along with their spawn-boxes are in brown and in stone. Those structures made of end-stone are elevators and droppers, to the left is one for skeletons, to the right one for cave spiders.

This made for a rather cramped internal layout, with 7 spawners and all the mobs which needed to be lead out, upwards, thrown down, and led to the middle again. Plus the redstone, mostly for lighting. it was a mess, the spider-grinder didn’t really work, for blazes and endermen I hadn’t implemented any automatic system, and I didn’t know where to put them because of lack of space.

Then I watched Etho Plays Minecraft – Episode 234: Egg Delivery where he demonstrated with Minecraft 1.4 items will go up a solid block, if there’s no other space around where they could go. So I redesigned the whole interior. I decided that only blazes would be left to kill for XP, and the other mobs would just get killed as soon as possible, and their items sent up to the central room.

This I did. And I moved the spiders to one side, making space for another spawner, slimes, making it the whole 8 spawners I initially envisioned. Of course, if I hadn’t cared for isolating zombies, creepers and skeletons from each other, it would have been possible to put in more spawners. Probably all of them. So this isn’t as efficient as it could be.

I initially had some problems with the redstone-circuits, but I finally realised that something simpler would do the job just as well. Now it’s only tow clocks, one for the item elevator and one for the grinder, a T-flipflop, also for the grinder, and a pulser, for sweeping out items.

The two mobs posing the biggest problems were blazes and slime. blazes, because they need a light level of 11 or higher in order not to spawn (which I solved with lots of redstone lamps and a smaller spawn-area) and the slimes, which would spawn in any light. I now put half their spawn area under water if spawning is turned off, but small slimes still spawn. For the cave spiders, I just turned the above item elevator into a killing machine, killing spiders and sending up items at the same time.

Right now, I’m still not entirely happy with the blaze-situation, I would like to have them delivered to the central room, so I can kill blazes while I wait for items, but I’ve not yet found a good solution.

Finally, I couldn’t resist to give the thing a facade, and I decided upon a late 19th century industrial look. Half of it is buried in the ground, so this makes the main control room in the middle of the structure easily acessible from ground level:

I call it “The Manufacture”, although it’s of course none. But this fits with the 19th century theme, where factories sometimes still were called manufactures, although the production wasn’t really “handmade” any more. And it works day and night ;):

Level and schematic:

Update:

Mob Products

Minecraft 1.5 is out, and it makes item-handling so much easier. So this is the totally revamped mob factory, now called “Mob Products”, featuring lettering on the roof (idea and font by Etho), and using hopper conveyors, dropper elevators and an item sorter.

Also, I went over it with 1.6.2 and the HostileSpawnOverlay mod, and fixed some lighting.

Update 2:

Mob Products Front

I fixed the typo on the roof ;).

No new level but simply the schematic:

The license of these files and my screenshots is the OPL 1.0 or CC-by-sa 3.0.

Minecraft: Medieval/Baroque Town

December 2nd, 2012

If you go to Planet Minecraft or mcschematics and look for schematics of levels of towns, you’ll notice something: Just about none of them are. They’re villages with walls and maybe a castle. Rarely, there are some that somehow make sense, like Skycrown (Nothing historically correct in this one, but plausible).

There are, however, cities that look like cites. This Imperial City is simply unbelievable.

But I didn’t want a city, but simply a fortified town for the NPCs. And I wanted a town which looked like it, and not like a village: Neither totally flat, nor with too straight roads, nor one with dispersed single-story buildings — the latter being the defining characteristic of a village. Towns need to be cramped, buildings built in rows and blocks right next to each other, with a small footprint but multiple stories high to maximize real estate.

I decided to go for a rather medieval look in general, with upper stories protruding in front of the building, sometimes with arcades in front of the houses. Also, with firewalls between the houses which are slightly higher than the roofs. Most houses feature a stall/shop behind double doors, and another entrance for entering the workshop and the living quarters.

However, the medieval looks is not drawn trough. Think of a medieval town that was modified in the later centuries, and arrived in the 18th century. Most buildings are still of older types, and only the most modern buildings really have a baroque look. In that case, it’s the city walls, which are already in the model of a star-shaped fortress of the late 17th century, including the gate-tower, the town hall with it’s tower, and the church. The church is actually the uppermost part of a cathedral by someone else, inspired by the Frauenkirche in Dresden. I won’t include it in the schematic (so I can put the town under a free license), but you’ll notice the big round place at the top of the town — just copy paste in either the cuppola of above cathedral, or something else there. And the lighthouse is actually too modern, these turned up in this form later in the 19th century.

The schematic is a cut-out from my usual map, since the town didn’t lend itself nicely to being placed on flat ground. It’s supposed to be on a hill towards the sea. If you want to set it into its original setting, the world seed is “3327780” (structures, cheats, no bonus chest, type default). You’ll find the place at +850/+600, southeast of the spawn point. There’s a village there (which in fact, was the base of my town and supplied its population).

Here’s the level and schematic:

The license of these files and my screenshots is the OPL 1.0 (which is about the same as CC-by-sa).

Minecraft: Vaubans Fortress

September 11th, 2012

Vauban was the foremost military engineer of the late 17th and beginning 18th century, and he built dozens of fortresses for Louis XIV. Typical for his art is the star-shaped fortress, which allows fire from one bastion to cover all space in front of a wall or another bastion.

This is my take on such a fortress. It’s loosely based on the fort of Bayonne (high-resolution pictures can be found at Wikimedia Commons: Citadelle de Bayonne), since that one is rather square than pentagonal and so lent itself to easier implementation in Minecraft. Well, easier, not exactly easy.

It measures 260 by 244 blocks. Now it also becomes clear why I needed compact designs of Minecraft Cannons. These go onto the ramparts in numbers. There should be 47 short guns (my “carronade”) and 40 long guns (my cannon mk1 and mk2) on there…

Within the citadel of Bayonne are some not-very inspiring barracks-type buildings, which I initially planned to build as well, but then I found an Isometric view of the Citadel of Bayonne which made clear that I was off anyway, and my fortress wasn’t really Bayonne. So thought what the heck, we’ll go for baroque, all the way, with garrets and an onion-domed tower. I got me some more inspiration in the form of baroque mansions and town halls, and put a mélange of them on there.

And that’s how the whole thing looks, at dusk:

Well, that’s about it, here’s the level and schematic:

The license of these files and my screenshots is the OPL 1.0 (which is about the same as CC-by-sa); the original plan of Bayonne is of course public domain.

The fortress lives best about 6 blocks up from the level ground on some slight hill, that’s why the level has it raised by this (it’s just the hill missing under it). Some small details are unfinished, namely the portal on the other side, and some kind of outer gateway fortification (you’ll notice, the modern one seen in the isometric drawing is quite different than the one on the original plan). It is about half equipped with furniture, as well as half filled with stuff, Most noteably, it’s got several huge powder magazines, The screenshots were taken on my survival map, the dowloadable level is flat.

Update: I updated the level and schematic, the fortress other entrance is now useable, has portals (automatic ones), a towerlet over one of the portals, and some gardening (hedges, fountains and lanternposts) done.

The New Robot Patent

September 11th, 2012

Just like the old Robot Patent (by Emperor Joseph II) this is of course all about rent-seeking.

As we’ve noted in The Moby Dick Support Device, some egregiously stupid patent-officers started accepting patents based on the un-reasoning that a computer running a program makes it a different computer, just as a bookshelf which is used to store copies of Moby Dick is an entirely different thing than an ordinary bookshelf.

Now comes the second chapter, enter the robot. Yes, they’re not doing much right now, but watch the flurry of all-new bogus patents rolling in as soon as they will get more useful. Everyone and their lawyers will start patenting everyday actions, coupled with the phrase “with a robot”.

saulgoode writes at Techdirt:

If the bobble heads at the Patent Office continue on the path they are currently following then we can certainly expect a rush of patents on all kinds of human activity with the caveat of it being done “with a robot” — e.g., dig a hole with a robot, change a tire with a robot, build a swing set with a robot — just as “with a computer” seems to justify patents being issued on things such as getting feedback from a buyer or scrolling through a document.

Ah, Arkham Asylum Patent Offices, home of the criminally insane. How could one ever, with this concise list of non-patentable matters: EPC, Art. 52, come to such a ridiculous interpretation? (Same in the USA, see The Moby Dick Support Device).

Minecraft: TNT Cannons

September 9th, 2012

In short, for those that didn’t know: It’s possible to build cannons in Minecraft, using TNT as charge, as well as payload. The trick is to detonate the charge TNT earlier, and place the payload in a position where it will be driven away by the explosion. And of course, unless you want your cannon to explode, you’ll need to place the charge into something inert, water will work nicely. Just search for “minecraft cannon” on youtube to see examples.

So these are some cannon designs I did for minecraft. I don’t claim the original idea for them, I just implemented, tried and tested. The reason I did this, was that I needed rather small cannons which wouldn’t look too alien on emplacing them onto the ramparts of a minecraft fortress.

Of course, they all come with schematics for mcedit (another one, not the mcedit from Midnight Commander).

Basic Cannons

These all are very basic. Payload is activated by some delay achieved with repeaters. However, since they’re rather simple, and space was scarce, there isn’t actually enough delay, so these don’t work against targets below the plane of the gun. The payload will just explode in mid-air in that case.

Simple cannon, 5x3x3 blocks

Cannon5x3x3.schematic

Simple cannon, 6x3x3 blocks

Cannon6x3x3.schematic

Simple cannon, 7x3x3 blocks

Cannon7x3x3.schematic

Diagonal cannon, 8x7x3 blocks

Yep, that one shoots diagonally.
DiagonalCannon8x7x3.schematic

Basic Aimable Cannon

The idea heere is to work with two stacks of charges, and to aim by not filling one stack completely. I also tried to make some non-diagonal ones, but I haven’t found a reliable design yet.

Aimable Diagonal Cannon, 8x7x3

AimableDiagonalCannon8x7x3.schematic

Better Cannons

These here are the ones I actually use. They contain enough repeaters to shoot just about anywhere, the main constraint in range seems to be minecraft itself, or rather the new client-server model of Minecraft 1.3.

All of them use obsidian for barrels, and sand stone for the carriage (or whatever you want to call that). Actually, if it explodes on you, only the half-slab in front, plus some redstone will have to be replaced. And if you bury them 2 blocks, the flood shouldn’t damage the repeaters.

Cannon Mk1, 8x5x6 blocks

My first design for a cannon for use in fortresses. It’s supposed to be buried 2 blocks deep. It’s quite slick, but due to it using only 9 repeaters, maximum range is slightly limited to what is possible.
CannonMk1-8x5x6.schematic

Cannon Mk2, 8x5x6 blocks

This one has the circuits slightly altered, making it able to delay a tiny bit longer with its 10 repeaters. An in-between version had a totally altered layout with 12 repeaters, which turned out to beb totally useless, since 10 is the useable maximum (otherwise you get squibs).
CannonMk2-8x5x6.schematic

Carronade, 6x5x6 blocks

This one is actually a totally redesigned Mk1. It’s much shorter, but since it still uses 2 layers of TNT, it still packs a pretty punch. It’s not as slick as the Cannon, since a few sacrifices had to be made to fit all 9 repeaters.
Carronade6x5x6.schematic

Arrow Gun


Here as well, a tight footprint and a “look” of a gun (when buried two blocks deep) was aspired. Uses a pulser, you turn it on, it shoots arrows, until it runs out or you turn it off.
ArrowGun3x3x3.schematic

Debian Multi-Arch woes

July 15th, 2012

Since a few months, Debian is going Multiarch.

So I thought I give it a try. I compiled a 64bit-kernel on my 32bit computer:
make menuconfig ARCH=x86_64; make ARCH=x86_64
Which works nicely. You only need to take care that if you ever need to compile an i386-kernel on the same machine, you will need to specify ARCH=x86 for that one in the future (after you’ve booted your system to use the 64bit kernel).

From there on I installed a new Debian, debootstrap --arch=amd64 sid /mnt, mounted a few necessary filesystems into it, and chrooted into the new 64bit system:

mount -o bind /proc/ /mnt/proc/
mount -o bind /sys/ /mnt/sys/
mount -o bind /dev/ /mnt/dev/
mount -o bind /boot/ /mnt/boot/
chroot /mnt /bin/bash

Now comes the usual installation, packages, configfiles, installing grub, etc.

A few hours later I had a complete system, with my usual 6000 packages installed…

Upon booting the new system, I stumbled upon some few small problems, like libasound2-plugin-equal not being installed (and after that, complaining about a wrong binary format of .alsaequal.bin), No big problems there, until I turned on Multi-Arch:
dpkg --add-architecture i386
and started to try to install some i386 programs. Most work, at least when you’ve got all those dozens of i386 dependencies right.

But then came wine. Turns out, wine needs wine1.5-amd64 and wine1.5-i386 both, and the latter, wine1.5-i386 needs to be built on an i386. I already had that; but I still needed to recompile it without opencl, since that one refused to be installed as a 32bit-version on amd64 (well, it wants to deinstall the 64bit version).

After having installed all the runtime dependencies for the android-SDK, AVG antivirus and, most of all, wine1.5-i386, I ended up with these i386 packages installed:

gcc-4.7-base:i386 libasound2:i386 libasyncns0:i386 libattr1:i386 libc6:i386 libcaca0:i386 libcap2:i386 libdb5.1:i386 libdbus-1-3:i386 libdirectfb-1.2-9:i386 libdrm-intel1:i386 libdrm-nouveau1a:i386 libdrm-radeon1:i386 libdrm2:i386 libexif12:i386 libexpat1:i386 libffi5:i386 libflac8:i386 libfontconfig1:i386 libfreetype6:i386 libgcc1:i386 libgcrypt11:i386 libgd2-xpm:i386 libgl1-mesa-dri:i386 libgl1-mesa-glx:i386 libglapi-mesa:i386 libglib2.0-0:i386 libglu1-mesa:i386 libgnutls26:i386 libgpg-error0:i386 libgphoto2-2:i386 libgphoto2-port0:i386 libgpm2:i386 libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0:i386 libgstreamer0.10-0:i386 libice6:i386 libjpeg8:i386 libjson0:i386 liblcms1:i386 libldap-2.4-2:i386 libltdl7:i386 liblzma5:i386 libmpg123-0:i386 libncurses5:i386 libncursesw5:i386 libogg0:i386 libopenal1:i386 liborc-0.4-0:i386 libp11-kit0:i386 libpciaccess0:i386 libpcre3:i386 libpng12-0:i386 libpulse0:i386 libsasl2-2:i386 libsdl1.2debian:i386 libselinux1:i386 libslang2:i386 libsm6:i386 libsndfile1:i386 libssl1.0.0:i386 libstdc++6:i386 libtasn1-3:i386 libtinfo5:i386 libts-0.0-0:i386 libusb-0.1-4:i386 libuuid1:i386 libvorbis0a:i386 libvorbisenc2:i386 libwrap0:i386 libx11-6:i386 libx11-xcb1:i386 libxau6:i386 libxcb-glx0:i386 libxcb1:i386 libxdamage1:i386 libxdmcp6:i386 libxext6:i386 libxfixes3:i386 libxi6:i386 libxml2:i386 libxpm4:i386 libxtst6:i386 libxxf86vm1:i386 zlib1g:i386

Just don’t dare to install anything i386 with dpkg from a package, without having the dependencies there first. It will want to deinstall half your system first when doing apt-get -f install .

And now comes the really un-funny part. Notice that “mesa” in there? Yes, this means nvidia is not going to be accelerated for 32 bit, which means again just about no 32bit 3D applications will run with any decent speed, if at all. Same for wine as for native apps. The whole nvidia-packages are just not multi-arch capable, and unless you’re feeling to mess up your system with by-hand copied binaries, you just go back to your 32bit-system (with a 64bit kernel) and wait a few month more before trying to switch again.

Minecraft: Châteaux Vufflens

April 18th, 2012

Irgendwie hat sich dieses spätmittelalterliche Ding in Backstein einfach aufgedrängt. Es wollte in Minecraft realisiert werden. Warum ich 18-24 Stunden dafür verwendet habe weis ich immer noch nicht. Es wollte es eben.

Dokumentation von 1881

Aber dafür bekommt nun die Welt nicht bloss ein Minecraft-Schema, sondern auch gleich die Dokumentation und Pläne von Vufflens, aus den “Mittheilungen der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zürich” von 1881, komplett digitalisiert, und die Texte durchs OCR gejagt. Die sind Gemeinfrei (“Public Domain”).

Minecraft Level

Ich habe versucht mich möglichst genau an die Pläne, sowie diverse Bilder aus dem Internet, inklusive Google StreetView zu halten. Naturgemäss ist bei 1×1-Meter-Blöcken nicht alles genau einzuhalten. Die Raumaufteilung stimmt, die Proportionen ungefähr (tatsächlich ist der Donjon zu hoch; eine Notwendigkeit damit der Vorbau genügend Stockwerke bekommen konnte) gewisse moderne Dinge wie die Terrasse vor dem Palas habe ich weggelassen. Die Lizenz hier ist die OPL 1.0 (was in etwa dasselbe wie CC-by-sa ist).

Enjoy!