13 posts • joined Wednesday 3rd February 2010 16:43 GMT
Re: you have that backward
>> significant overlap between the "gun control uber alles" nutter set and the:
>> "already serving time for felony assault/theft" set too.
Actually no. This set are highly supportive of gun control.
>> Not to mention even more overlap when you add the "spent most of their formative and adult years under perception and mood altering chemicals" crowd
Also no. This set vote overwhelmingly Democratic Party in both myth and truth and are largely anti-gun. These tend to be single-issue 'legalize drugs' voters.
The pro-gun types are:
1) Libertarians - on the basis of personal freedom principles and/or fear of kleptocratic government (justified imho).
2) The religious - on the basis of fear of persecution by government...one major reason why the US was formed in the first place. Currently not justified but these guys take the long view...which is hard to argue with IMO. There is an 'earth is only 6k years old' subgroup in this - very small but a popular target since the belief is pretty far from the mainstream
3) Hunters, sportsmen, and former military types - basically people who see guns as just another tool or hobby item. LOTS of these guys
4) Fear of crime types - not very many of these actually...at least not that I've found. I think this is limited to urban voters in bad or 'gentrifying' areas and border areas with serious gang activity (southwest MS13, etc). In suburban and exurban America there is not much random crime and the latter group (exurb/rural) are pretty much captured in category 3
Fear of government types dominate the pro-gun side of the debate (and this is the founding reason for the right in the constitution). Fear of crime topics dominate the discussion as that is the only lens through which the media want to have any discussion as the media are overwhelmingly statist.
Re: Your straw man is on fire
"Let's say I want to make a phone. I have a couple of ideas that makes this phone unique."
If this is the case then you do three things:
1) File Utility patent applications for the things that make your phone unique. Don't file a patent for "a phone" just for the one or more features individually that are *your* inventions. If you do not have any inventions, you just used existing inventions rearranged into a new design then skip this step.
2) File a Design patent for your unique phone. This protects your phone design (the way all the components come together) from someone else making a direct copy or a copy that is so close it would be easily confused. File this patent *even if* you also have utility patents pending also.
3) License the IP for all the utility features used in your unique phone that you did not invent. There will be a lot of them and it will take a few percent off of your margin but wil not slow you down in going to market. Much of the licensing will come bundled into the components and/or will be FRAND; i.e. the chipset will come with licensing (or directions on where to go to get it), the OS will come with licensing (in fact usually you "license it" rather than purchase it), etc.
Presto, you are now in business with a unique and hopefuly saleable product that is protected from being copied!
Re: cheap and relatively easy
Stop at the first sentence...
You do not have to be rich or powerful to get a patent approved. Patent filing does take a little paperwork but mostly that consists of describing your invention in detail. It is cheap to file, less cheap if you use a lawyer's assistance but still no barier to getting a patent. Actually getting the patent takes a while because of the backlog but everyone (corps and natural persons) are in the same queues.
If you are the first then file a patent or shut up about it.
If you start with someone else's work and invent something new on top of that then patent it. The world thanks you for your effort and it a lot of people like it you'll make a fortune. If it sucks then not so much but hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
More venturing, less complaining.
Fail, because te premise of your argument is broken.
Survey results don't match my experience
Maybe it is a local bias (live near DC, travel regularly) but I cannot think of anyone that would agree that the TSA is doing a good job. The conversations I hear are more frequently about how it should be disbanded, generally followed by a first or second hand account of obnoxious behavior. I have not had a bad experience myself, other than the general annoyance with the process, but would agree with the "get rid of them" assessment. Enormous waste of time and money, oppressive concept to begin with, and the few terrorist attempts have been thwarted by passengers rather than security.
Not reliability exactly...
Strong secondary market is more of a pull I think. Since Apple's design language is very slow changing and they do produce a high quality product you can always sell a Mac on the second market for a reasonable price. If you upgrade you can count on recovering a significant fraction of your outlay on the last model. PCs on the other hand are essentially disposable (at least in the US judging by Craigslist).
Re: the Apple user...I doubt Apple users are in more of a rush for shiny things than anyone else. The haters seem to fondly believe that Apple users are all rich morons wandering about bumping into things, vomiting money, and buying Apple product purely for status.
From what I have seen the truth is somewhat the opposite as far as behavior. The PC geeks I know spend an inordinate amount of time comparing system specs, arguing over who's graphics card is faster, and upgrading cases to include glowing lights and fans.
OTOH I use a mac because the obligatory productivity apps (MS Office) work really well, it is Unix and I like the CLI (especially for managing remote machines), and it is physically a nice design.
I see the market as roughly divided into BMW (Apple) and GM (PC manufacturers) camps. They all work just fine but have different appeal around the margins.
Paris, because I am a mac user...must be an idiot?
Better for fire support
Artillery is the first thing that comes to mind...
Look at target
One blink <marks target>
Two quick blinks <fire for effect>
<chirpy female voice> "Shot"
"Splash in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, __"
<massive detonation at target>
"mission complete, have a nice day!" </chirpy female voice>
Left-Right headshake cancels target select
Likely means they are using a multi-mode chipset so they can have a single device for both CDMA and GSM. Single SKU means higher volume on the production line (cheaper), only one support process (cheaper), one return/exchange/repair process (cheaper), and only one software load to debug (cheaper).
Plus it moves North America closer to the European model since it might make it possible for customers to switch between VZ and ATT.
Post your own message
Card selection aside, you do realize that the enormous slab of aluminum make a fantastic heat-sink, yes? 'Should be a decent radiator as well; not as efficient as a fan forced mass of copper fins but the much larger area would count for a lot.
Or just use IPv6
The attack works simply because IPv6 is preferred. So if you set up your own router to use IPv6 the problem is solved, yes? If IPv6 is already configured the attack would be ineffective as the computer would already be attached and not find the alternate router's proposal attractive.
Paris, because your computer is just as promiscuous...
Teaching should not be a career
...until after you've had another career first. Otherwise it is purely regurgitation/recitation and either a) a waste of good talent (if the teacher has skills) or b) a complete waste (if he/she does not).
Old b@stards who've retired should be recruited back to teach and everyone 'teaching' who has less than 6-10 years working in their field should be canned. IMO.
"Facially flawed" is an abbreviated way to say "flawed on its face", which means in regular english "obviously f*ed up". I.e. what Fusion Garage are saying is that Arrington's compliant is so obviously stupid that it should be thrown out before a trial.
Which goes to Matthew 7's note... in the US you can make a motion for Summary Judgement before getting to trial. This is an attempt to get a judge to make a decision without the expense (for everyone) of a full trial. In making a motion for summary judgement you try to show the judge that the case should be immediately decided in your favor because there are no facts in dispute and that, furthermore, even an abject moron could see that you are in the right. The opposing party is also present when such a motion is made though. If successful everyone, including the Court, avoids all the expense and hassle of a trial.
IANAL though so, although I have an interest in law I don't know the details of what can go before summary judgement and not, how its done, etc.
ANyway...you can see the Fusion Garage position is that basically Arrington is not just probably wrong, but so obviously and unmistakably wrong that the court should just throw the whole thing out and not waste everyone's time. 'No idea if that will work or not.
Not a good laptop, but a good appliance
I think Jeff Shortland is on the right track and I would bet that the iPad, despite the name, will sell well. I can already see buying or facilitating the buy of at least three; for my mother, grandmother, and daughter.
It seems to me that the iPad is being bashed mainly for being such a poor laptop replacement. Sure, it's not the super computer sheet of glass from the usual sci-fi flicks. However it isn't meant for that. It is a simple, easy to support (IT support I mean), appliance for web browsing, small apps, and media. For the semi- or non- computer savvy people in your life...or those whose *current* computing needs do not require a full laptop the iPad is perfect.
e.g.: my mother is semi-computer savvy. Yes, she can use a laptop but only if everything is already arranged and if, once she has learned it, nothing changes. She is a medical professional with a lifetime of skill in medicine and patient care (US private system) and little time or interest in computers themselves. However she does need to use email, loves to see pictures of her kids and grandkids, and would find researching via the web a real treat if she could get past the ancient computers that work provides her. An iPad would be brilliant for her. Great Christmas or birthday gift.
e.g.: my grandmother hasn't the faintest clue about computers ("that's nice dear") chases mice with her broom, and makes a nice pot of tea but lives nowhere near us. I do not know but I suspect that she could operate an iPad (the interface is straightforward enough) if I set it up for her. That way I could push regular pictures of her great-grandkids to her and keep in touch.
e.g.: my daughter, the inquisitive three yo. She likes to 'help me work' on the laptop (Mac Air), which is entertaining enough, but really would be better served with an introductory platform onto which I could put reading/math/language applications for fun and learning. Today the options are a raft of single age-range gadgets like the LeapPad that want replacing every six months as she grows. The iPad would last at least a couple of years, probably 3-4, since I (and eventually she) could keep loading age-appropriate apps.
So…I think this new Apple appliance has legs; just not for laptop replacement.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire