Re: Re: Lukk- I kan spel funny tou.
It helps if you read it in Jar-Jar Binks voice.
1543 posts • joined 8 Feb 2007
Because I ABSOLUTELY want Google to be able to pop a banner ad or an "important" alert up in my field of vision while I'm walking down a flight of stairs. The money will come in handy for my next of kin.
OTOH, to be fair, a simpler version of this could be REALLY useful if, say, I could have a manual hanging directly in front of me WHILE I'm looking into the guts of whatever it is I'm trying to repair/upgrade (I'm not a hardware person by either trade or inclination; I'm just a cheap bastard).
If you threaten or abuse someone IN PERSON in Arizona -- where they have "Stand Your Ground" and essentially-universal "Concealed Carry" laws -- they can legally shoot you. They can't shoot you over the interwebz for doing the same thing, and that is simply unacceptable!
...I begin to think that we can add Southern Californians, Arizonans, Texans, and Floridians to the list of "mad dogs and Englishmen" who spend too much time in the midday sun.
If you want to go more than 25 MPH under powered drive alone, then they want you to have a license, etc., since what you have at that point is a motorized vehicle.
You are still allowed to go over 25 MPH on a motor-ASSISTED vehicle... No one is stopping you except for a lard-assed inability to pedal at 10 MPH.
Also, at a quick glance, the proportions on the Specialized bike don't look THAT different from a standard bike with a tire pump attached to the frame diagona. Thus, while it's pretty obvious when some idiot is riding a moped or scooter under power on the sidewalk it would be less so with one of these. (I'm going on the, perhaps unwarranted, assumption that the penalties for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk -- usually a local ordinance, if it's prohibited at all -- are different from driving a motor vehicle there.)
"(...) scaredy-cat legal beartraps."
So, if you were arrested and charged with a crime (let's go for broke and say kiddy-fiddling), you would be happy with all the news articles referring to you as "child molester <Stevie'sRealName>...", rather than pointing out that you're only accused and haven't been convicted yet...?
"I bet a £ to a penny that its not ever going to be quick enough for battlefield use. They are not going to discard something in the arena that will fix itself for the enemy to come along and pick up."
OTOH, not everything gets abandoned on the battlefield; some equipment DOES get taken back to a repair depot. I suspect that in the future the equation will be roughly the same as it is now "How expensive/critical/replaceable/repairable is this unit? Is it too damaged to be worthwhile sending back? If some parts are self-repairing, that could change the equation.
I could probably live with the battery life and the no-usb charging -- how big/heavy is the charging unit...? If it's a bitty iPod-sized one then that's not too bad for occasional carrying around. (And how come I never seem to hear anyone ranting about non-user-swappable batteries being deal-breakers anymore, now that Apple's not the only one shipping them...? <gr>)
For me, the problem is the 4GB storage. Sure, you can add SD cards, but as long as there are apps that won't run from SD cards, then they're not *REALLY* as useful as having on-board storage.
Still, they ARE getting closer to what I'm looking for; they're just not qu-i-i-i-i-ite there yet.
"I have no idea what size Apple's non-SEP portfolio is..."
According to the US Patent & Trademarks Office site, Apple has a total of 4649 patents awarded and 2945 pending. Unfortunately, they don't separate out SEP patents. The list also, I believe, only lists patents initially assigned to Apple directly and may not include those that Apple received through acquisitions or swaps or patents on which Apple is a co-holder (h.264 through its membership in MPEG LA, I think...?). Further, some number of those listed are design patents (the infamous "rounded rectangle" that so many fume over) and some are technical patents ("Method and apparatus for improved duration modeling of phonemes in a speech synthesis system," to pick one at random). What the split is I don't know.
I think that it may be the design patents that could be the sticking point. If Google owns Motorola and Motorola has access to all of Apple's design patents, this would seem to imply that Motorola could make and sell under their own label a tablet, say, that looks identical with an iPad, with a UI that looks identical with iOS. Now, it seems unlikely that Moto WOULD do that under their own brand, since it would be a tacit acknowledgement that they make "me too" products. OTOH, it appears that there would be nothing stopping them from setting up a new division with a new marque selling to the low end of the market with all that that implies -- resistive screen, bottom-of-the-line processor, cheesy build quality -- running an iOS-skinned Android on an iPad-looking device.
Build it like a Coby Kyros and sell it as "just like an Apple iPad" and I doubt that the fallout would take any gloss off of Motorola's reputation among the general public as much as it would off of Apple's ("If this is just like an iPad, then what's all the fuss about?"). And with the depth of Google's pockets subsidizing this, such a product line could survive to erode Apple's image in the mass market for far longer than a less cash-rich company could manage.
I dunno, but that's what I might be be thinking if I were a cynical sort of individual (...which, of course, I'm not...! ;-) ).
We had a case some years ago where a State Trooper driving down the highway saw a rental truck being driven by a guy wearing (back then) Walkman earphones. He pulled the truck over and was gently explaining why this was unsafe when, it being a warm summer's day, he noticed a sweetish, greenish, resinous-ish aroma coming from the box of the truck. Getting -- grudging -- permission from the driver, he opened the back of the truck to find it filled floor to ceiling with black trash bags full of recently-harvested marijuana.
Lesson: If you're going to break the BIG laws, make sure that you always obey the LITTLE ones while you're doing so.
...and they're still out of my price range.
Back in the late '80s I did tech illustration for a (now defunct) computer company that was a beta test site for a company called Qubix Graphics Systems. Qubix had a pen-based "draw on the screen" UNIX-based workstation that was an illustrator's/draftsman's dream. The Qubix system was also fully adjustable from vertical to horizontal to mimic the illustrator's preferred drawing board set-up (Of course, since this was a honkin' big CRT screen back in the day, the adjustment was accomplished by an electric motor in the pedestal!). Ms Orr is correct -- there is NOTHING like the immediacy of working directly ON your image. Having to go back to drawing with a mouse on a horizontal surface while watching a vertical screen when I left the company was a wrenching experience.
Qubix, of course, got leapfrogged in the vector illustration market and put out of business by Adobe Illustrator and Aldus Freehand going directly to the personal computer which were, if not as exceptional an experience as the workstation, good enough and cheap enough that most everyone could get in on it. Coincidentally, the company that I was working for was heavily into the "mincomputer" business and ALSO got bypassed by the PC explosion and is no more. There's an irony there...
It should also be noted that -- at least in the Florida case -- the prosecution was trying to gather evidence to present to a Grand Jury, whose job it is to look at the evidence and see whether there is enough to warrant holding the accused over for trial. The (apparent) fact that the prosecution felt that they NEEDED whatever may have been on those hard drives in order to bring the case to trial implies that they really may not have had a very solid case at all and were going on a fishing expedition.
Once they had the drives in clear, there was, AFAIK, no limit to what they could look for -- they weren't limited to looking for child porn but could use anything they found (records of unreported freelance income, say) with which to pile added charges on. Too many prosecutors get ahead by following the policy attributed to Cardinal Richelieu: "Give me ten lines written by the most pious of men and *I* can find something with which to hang him!"
"(W)hat does offend me is that there's not nearly enough Autism related jokes out there..."
Well... there are, but you just aren't getting them...
(Thank you folks; you've been a lovely audience! We'll be here all week.!)
As to the original article -- "Give me 'Commentard' or give me death!" (Or, for the more current take: "They can have my 'Commentard' when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!"). It has always reminded me of the French "Communards" -- another group full of sound and fury, accomplishing... pretty much nothing.
...So it has precedent and ironic aptness, if nothing else.
It all rather depends on whether this is officially-sanctioned criminal activity or not. While it LOOKS like it might be, given the court's seemingly skewed reading of the sale agreement, it COULD just be Beijing going along, rather than being an active participant.
Even if it is, if the head of ProView isn't tight with Li Keqiang and Xi Jinping (widely expected to become premier and president, respectively, this fall), then whatever ProView's status re "official crime" is now could change radically, particularly if Apple mooted the idea that $2 billion would go a long way towards setting up manufacturing lines somewhere like India or Thailand that already have tech manufacturing infrastructures in place and could use the jobs.
...then the solution seems clear.
If, as it appears from the documentation, ProView's "Taiwan division" did in fact sell something that it didn't own -- i.e.: the China rights to the name iPad -- then they committed fraud and should be charged criminally as well as sued in civil court in both China and Taiwan. Since I'm assuming that both countries have laws that prevent profiting from criminal activity, PeoView's putative $2 billion AND the original sale price (plus court costs, etc.) should be at risk.
IANAL, but that's how the situation reads to me, anyhow.
Well, she doubtless learned that the proper response to a public tantrum is an even bigger public tantrum...
She doubtless learned that the best way to show your love for someone who is dependent on you is with public humiliation...
She doubtless learned that it's safer to bury any feelings that she might have from her over-reactive father than to deal with them openly...
She doubtless learned that the only rational, adult response to adolescent venting is gunfire...
...and, presumably, if her father is ever job-hunting in the future, she will then get to learn the dangers of posting video on the web which demonstrates that you can be an absolute fucknuckle when you are frustrated.
"The Coca-Cola bottle was specifically designed to be different and distinguish it from other products."
And if you look at a history of tablet computing, like this one: http://www.pcworld.com/article/188223/the_long_fail_a_brief_history_of_unsuccessful_tablet_computers.html
...or this one:
...you will see that Jonathan Ives' minimalist design WAS intended to be different from anything else that had previously been put forth as a tablet computer. Trade dress does not *have* to mean "the most decorated", it just has to be sufficiently *different* from anything that already exists in its market. Ives' design clearly met that criterion. Had Samsung been first to market with its tablet, then *its* trade dress would be the one that competitors would have to work to avoid appearing to imitate.
"If I was selling shoes and chose to sell them in a plain white shoebox should I qualify for a design patent?"
You would presumably have to show how your plain white box >>differed in an immediately obvious way<< from any other white box that had been used for shoes. If its design was distinctive enough -- if its appearance did not too closely resemble "prior art" -- then you possibly could. At that point, all the decision would mean is that no one else could deliver shoes in a box which looked like your distinctively-designed one. Other white boxes, as long as they were clearly designed NOT to look too much like your design, would likely be allowable.
I'm not saying anything about whether your shoebox example, or the Apple/Samsung decision is right or wrong; I'm just explaining the concept and the current law, as I understand them.
There is a concept in business called "trade dress", which can be defined as "that which makes your product look different from your competitor's". An example would be the "seed-pod" shape, red and white color scheme, logo design, etc. of a Coca-Cola bottle. There are an infinite number of ways to make a bottle that does NOT look like a Coke bottle -- color choices in the label and package materials, surface treatments (fluting, bumps), etc. The closer a bottle comes to the appearance of a Coke bottle the better the case that Coca-Cola would have for claiming infringement on their distinctive trade dress. Most companies that choose to compete on the merits of their product will choose a distinctive trade dress for their products. This is why it’s easy to tell the difference between a bottle of Coca-Cola and a bottle of Pepsi Cola from, say, ten feet away. They did that intentionally.
The EU codifies "trade dress", as I understand it, under the term "design patent"; that is, that a specific design -- a product's trade dress -- is patentable, In the U.S. trade dress comes under the copyright laws.
Stated or implied in the "Apple patented a rectangle" claim is that a rectangle with rounded corners of a certain radius and a black bezel of certain proportions, etc., is the ONLY way to design a tablet and so is not eligible for a design patent -- i.e.; can not be a unique trade dress. The implication is that, unlike the Coca-Cola bottle, there is NOT an effectively infinite number of ways to design/decorate a tablet device to differentiate one from another. I think that the fallacy of this is self-evident: OBVIOUSLY different corners/bezel, concave or convex sides, trims/bezels/controls in contrasting colors or textures... the possibilities are endless. Samsung's tablet appeared to have been designed to closely resemble Apple's trade with JUST enough differences to skirt the issue. The German (I think?) courts decided Samsung DIDN'T skirt it, but overstepped the line.
"By design, "Typeface" or "Fonts" are supposed to be more readable than handwriting. There should be no possible way for an "L" to be mistaken for a "1" or "I". Any font that does not differentiate characters properly should not be allowed. Period. End of Discussion....."
You have just eliminated every serif font (l and 1" in Times, e. g.), and every SANS-serif font (I and l in Helvetica).
From this day forward, the web shall be presented in NOTHING but Zapf Chancery. Period. End of Discussion.....!
Sorry to spoil your wet-dream, but I suspect that if "...all the other phone companies (...) openly join forces (...), throwing everything they have as a team against apple," that there would not be a court/international trade organization in the world that wouldn't see that as an illegal cartel engaging in restraint of trade. There are, basically, four significant smartphone platforms today: iOS, WinPhone, Android, and BlackBerry OS. Any attempt to convince a court/ITO that reducing that ecosystem by 25% would be good for consumers would face a MAJOR uphill battle -- vis., the AT&T/T-Mobile acquisition debacle of recent memory.
As a separate issue -- Apple is currently being fairly targeted in their lawsuits; aiming at what they presumably believe to be (relatively) easily-winnable cases. Do you honestly believe that Apple's management would be content only to DEFEND the company if they were suddenly the target of a concerted campaign by every other phone manufacturer in the world...?
...A campaign that put Apple's very existence at stake...?
They certainly would not. Rather, going on the theory that the best defense is a good offense, the targeted approach would go out the window and the street sweeper would come out -- shotgunning EVERY lawsuit even MARGINALLY (by THEIR definition, not yours!) defensible at everyone who is attacking them, tying them ALL up in courts all over the world for many very expensive, profit-draining years. In "The Art of War" Sun-Tzu warned against putting your enemy in a position from which he has no chance of escape; putting his survival at stake will strengthen his resolve and, while you MAY win,, you are likely to fatally weaken yourself in the process.
...And in the midst of this battle, should they be foolish enough to start it, which of the temporary allies wouldn't be looking at the others and asking "Who among us is going to weaken himself enough that I can I push him under the bus en passant...? If I weaken myself too much, will *I* be next...?"
No. Sorry. Not gonna happen.
"I do not want any of these "apple" students to by my lawyer, doctor, etc.....
If there (sic) so thick to need to use apple products, I'd have no faith in their abilities!"
If I were hiring a computer tech, I'd probably want one who had spent his college years fighting every hoop that Windows or Linux had made him jump through to get them to work. If I were choosing a doctor or a lawyer, I'd want one who had been able to spend his/her time studying medicine or law, rather than computer internals.
But maybe that's just me.
"It would be like someone in the roman era trying to build an Airbus."
Curious that you use that example. The Romans are notorious for having taken the Greek legacy of investigation in mathematics and science and doing absolutely nothing to advance them in the 600 years until they collapsed and led us into the Dark Ages.
If it had no immediate practical use at that moment, they were basically uninterested. They were not theorists and they were not experimenters.
Your apparent attitude strikes me as a VERY Roman one. "We don't know anything about it and we can't use it NOW, so what's the point wasting resources in thinking about it?"
If we have learned anything in the last couple of hundred years, it's that theory and experiment -- thinking and tinkering -- research and development -- go hand in hand and, frequently, lead to completely unexpected results. Remember Physicist I.I. Rabi's pained query on the discovery of the -- unpredicted -- mu-meson: "Who ordered this?" Without experiment leapfrogging theory leapfrogging experiment, ad infinitum, much of what we have and what (we think) we know about how the world works might not have come about as early as it did.
I don't expect a warp drive or a Bergenholm generator to come out of this, but a really efficient plasma drive that, given a long-enough period of constant acceleration, could take a ship to a significant fraction of C (and the powerplant to run it) is probably not impossible. It seems silly to me to wait the ENTIRE project on finalizing the drive train. Plan the mission in modules -- "What can we do if we have THIS; what can we do if we have THAT...?", then let the parts come together as they will for the final design.
"but "freshest water in 50 years of monitoring" is less so."
Presumably, since that appears to be the result of more fresh water being pushed away from the Russian side, presumably that side is the SALTIEST that it's been in the last 50 years, with the total salinity of the ArcTic ocean ending up almost constant.
Could we see species "flipping" with high-salinity-preferring species moving west and low-salinity-preferring ones moving east? Is the change in salinity across the ocean enough to make a difference? Inquiring minds want to know.
...Wookiees for the Furry trade?
...Amputees with metallic "attachments" for She-Terminator fans?
...7 of 9 impersonators?
... Okay... Fine... 7 of 9 impersonators... Check...!
...And, of course, all of the Ferengi women... wear CLOTHES!
"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson
He may have been a damned bastard, but he was also a damned SMART bastard.
...I assumed that DT KNEW that the deal would be blocked and their plan was just to pull in an easy 3 billion. Actually selling T-M would have been a bonus, but keeping it AND getting easy money was the actual plan.
"Even following the termination of the agreement with AT&T, Deutsche Telekom expects to remain within the communicated ranges for certain financial performance indicators used to assess the financial performance of the company."
...sounds to me like they made their financial projections based on $3b, instead of $39bil.
Right now, DT management has got to be thinking "Set the bait and drop your line in again, Johann -- they'r really biting today!"
Or am I just being silly and cynical?
"Sadly the American civil court system more often than not comes down to who has the most money that they're willing to throw at lawyers, and Google and Amazon have quite a lot of money to throw. "
Ordinarily, I would agree with you, except for the fact that two guys from Australia and Miami set up their joint business in Texas -- so that they could bring their suit in a state whose court, you may recall, has apparently never met an IP holder that they didn't like.
... "What's the IT angle?", allow me to present the following for your consideration:
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history -- with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila." -- Mitch Ratliffe
There you go -- tying in the Reg as an IT site, the method of protest reported, and a probable contributory factor to said protest (and its ultimate ineffectualness).
It's a lovely sculptural shape (agreed that the gold is tacky).
And as the owner of a batch of old 78 rpm disks and a Victrola for same, I find the irony of reinventing/repurposing 19th century audio tech for use with a 21st century music delivery system quite entertaining. (And, curiously enough, if one were an actual purist, this would allow one to listen to reissues of old ragtime and jazz disks played back as they were originally heard!)
It's certainly not a necessity, and is equally certainly out of my price range, but maybe when I win the lottery...
First, bear in mind that I am neither physicist nor physician, but I wouldn't wonder that his body was actually burning more calories melting the frozen low-cal beer than were *IN* the beer.
It may have given him a feeling of fullness and a (slight) alcohol buzz, which may have given him some sense of well-being and kept his blood pressure down, but since eating the icy beer would have lowered his core temperature -- causing his body to work harder to warm it back up, which is why survival guides recommend against eating snow (of any color) as a way of assuaging thirst in an emergency situation -- AND opened his capillaries -- making his skin surface FEEL warmer but radiating body heat away in the process -- my guess is that he survived in SPITE of the beer, rather than BECAUSE of it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019