Slashdot Mirror

just tell them 12345

Am I the only person in the universe who likes gnome 3?

Nope! I love it.

I love the increased screen real estate for applications and I love the ease with which I can find and switch to windows on other virtual desktops. I typically work with eight virtual desktops, each one having multiple windows open. Gnome 3 lets me easily (and beautifully!) fly from one window to another across my different virtual desktops.

I love that all of my windows render faster. Compared to Gnome 2, Gnome 3 flies and every frame is picture perfect. No flickering. No tearing. I used to have video tearing in mplayer. Under Gnome 2 and the latest Xorg it's completely gone.

I also love how easy and fast it is to write Gnome 3 extensions that can change and manipulate literally anything in the Gnome 3 interface. Extensions use the same language and api that Gnome 3 is written in so user extensions are truly first class Gnome 3 code. Everything is html+css+javascript. Bang out some code, drop it in ~/.local/share/gnome-shell/extensions/, hit alt-f2, type 'r', hit return. My extension is loaded and run without compiling, building packages, or even having to log out. There's even an REPL built in! You can try out Gnome 3 code snippets ala Lisp, Python, Ruby...

I don't understand the massive hate towards Gnome 3. The only things I can think of are: 1) Some people don't like change of any kind no matter how positive. 2) Some people have a strange bigotry against html, css, and javascript, viewing them as inferior "web only" technologies.

If it has the mass of Jupiter, then Google tells me it's 9.4935 × 1030 carats

Billionaire porn collections are stored in multiple locations. billionaire pr0n collection

One guy running an exit node does not a service provider make.

Traffic through ISPs is expected to originate with the customers. If an ISP itself is also participating in criminal activity, their equipment gets seized, too. That's just not as common as some end user doing something illegal. Then, of course, there's the various political reasons. ISPs maintain logs of who has what address, and can quite quickly turn those logs over to police when asked. Note that I said "asked", not "presented with a search warrant". It's a professional relationship, and it's a great way to stay out of severe trouble.

The fact that an ISP is a corporation adds another important detail as well - multiple people. As a group grows larger, the probability for dissent increases. This is why conspiracies fail and governments are inefficient. At a corporation, there is a reasonable expectation that the business and the majority of its employees will follow applicable laws. If someone is found not following laws, it's likely that the first ones to know about it will be their coworkers, who will take steps to ensure their job security, including talking to police. With a one-man operation, there is no such expectation. The police can reasonably expect the guy to say whatever he can to avoid being convicted, whether or not he actually did anything illegal.

Running an exit node is like volunteering yourself for anything. You might end up helping someone commit a crime. If you want to protect yourself, keep logs of what the exit node's doing, establish a good relationship with police, and hand over those logs at a moment's notice. You're still likely to have equipment seized/searched, but it's much easier to claim you were unknowingly used if you can point at someone else. If this is too much against the principles that caused you to run an exit node in the first place, then expect to suffer for your cause.

Worthless for anything that requires typing because typing on an on-screen keyboard is a nightmare.

Beats the hell out of using thumbs on a screen a quarter of the size, though, don't it? Or for that matter, why not use voice recognition? If you haven't looked at it lately, you really really should. Google's voice recognition is simply worlds better than that old dragon was, and without spending 6 hours training it to recognize an individual's voice, either. Sit down with it for half an hour and actually train it, and it supposedly gets better... but I didn't bother because it works so well "out of the box".

Terrible web browsing experience.

Not as terrible as trying to use a laptop or netbook while standing up on a moving bus.

Rubbish for gaming because of the lack of physical controls.

Pocket Legends has over a million users. There are literally millions of downloads of console emulators. EVE Online is also coming to the mobile space. StarCraft looks like it was MADE for a touchscreen interface. Last but not anywhere near least, the Xperia Play - and if you go over my comment history, you will see that I absolutely hate Sony, so I'm the last guy anyone would expect to be pimping their products.

Useless for watching videos because who wants to hold their display while watching a film.

Try looking for protective cases that have kickstands built in, or just go low-tech and use a document holder. Duh.

Can't be used for any RealWork such as programming, graphic design, stock trading or anything else.

I'll grant some of this point. With typing being more difficult due to a lack of keyboard, coding would be a pain... assuming you don't change the interface. But I'm going to have to call "citation needed" on your "graphic design", your "stock trading", and with 4.5 billion app downloads last month just on the official android market and over 100,000 apps specifically for iPads released in the past 16 months, your "anything else".

I can't really think what else they could be used for.

There's really only a few things that PCs are better at, and that's a combination of sheer horsepower and input hardware. Toss a bluetooth keyboard into the mix, add a kickstand to the back, and 90% of the PC market will evaporate as people realize they don't need a $1200 monster to check their email and surf the web. Admittedly, that's just replacing a PC with a different piece of hardware... but I will point out that hospitals and law firms figured out that tablets roxor their soxors years ago.

In other words, Tablet + WiFi + content server = It's not the tablet that's useless for most people, it's the PC. With the advent of streaming media and wireless connec

Worthless for anything that requires typing because typing on an on-screen keyboard is a nightmare.

Beats the hell out of using thumbs on a screen a quarter of the size, though, don't it? Or for that matter, why not use voice recognition? If you haven't looked at it lately, you really really should. Google's voice recognition is simply worlds better than that old dragon was, and without spending 6 hours training it to recognize an individual's voice, either. Sit down with it for half an hour and actually train it, and it supposedly gets better... but I didn't bother because it works so well "out of the box".

Terrible web browsing experience.

Not as terrible as trying to use a laptop or netbook while standing up on a moving bus.

Rubbish for gaming because of the lack of physical controls.

Pocket Legends has over a million users. There are literally millions of downloads of console emulators. EVE Online is also coming to the mobile space. StarCraft looks like it was MADE for a touchscreen interface. Last but not anywhere near least, the Xperia Play - and if you go over my comment history, you will see that I absolutely hate Sony, so I'm the last guy anyone would expect to be pimping their products.

Useless for watching videos because who wants to hold their display while watching a film.

Try looking for protective cases that have kickstands built in, or just go low-tech and use a document holder. Duh.

Can't be used for any RealWork such as programming, graphic design, stock trading or anything else.

I'll grant some of this point. With typing being more difficult due to a lack of keyboard, coding would be a pain... assuming you don't change the interface. But I'm going to have to call "citation needed" on your "graphic design", your "stock trading", and with 4.5 billion app downloads last month just on the official android market and over 100,000 apps specifically for iPads released in the past 16 months, your "anything else".

I can't really think what else they could be used for.

There's really only a few things that PCs are better at, and that's a combination of sheer horsepower and input hardware. Toss a bluetooth keyboard into the mix, add a kickstand to the back, and 90% of the PC market will evaporate as people realize they don't need a $1200 monster to check their email and surf the web. Admittedly, that's just replacing a PC with a different piece of hardware... but I will point out that hospitals and law firms figured out that tablets roxor their soxors years ago.

In other words, Tablet + WiFi + content server = It's not the tablet that's useless for most people, it's the PC. With the advent of streaming media and wireless connec

Wrong on both counts.

1) Any of the current line of tablets will run CSipSimple, with which they instantly become a phone. Add the ubiquitous bluetooth headset and you don't even have to take the tablet out of your briefcase or back pack to answer it. My tablet has a phone number, and I pay exactly ZERO dollars for that service. No boot loader hacking involved. Install and run. Somewhere I had a How To on this, now slightly dated.

2) 7 inch tablets fit in a coat pocket or purse, 10 inch in your brief case.

Some Android tablets come with 3G and could handle voice anywhere, not just when near wifi.
Cellular networks are moving to LTE, and once completed, there is no distinction between data and voice.

There is really no difference between a tablet and a smartphone other than the size of the pocket it takes.

Wrong on both counts.

1) Any of the current line of tablets will run CSipSimple, with which they instantly become a phone. Add the ubiquitous bluetooth headset and you don't even have to take the tablet out of your briefcase or back pack to answer it. My tablet has a phone number, and I pay exactly ZERO dollars for that service. No boot loader hacking involved. Install and run. Somewhere I had a How To on this, now slightly dated.

2) 7 inch tablets fit in a coat pocket or purse, 10 inch in your brief case.

Some Android tablets come with 3G and could handle voice anywhere, not just when near wifi.
Cellular networks are moving to LTE, and once completed, there is no distinction between data and voice.

There is really no difference between a tablet and a smartphone other than the size of the pocket it takes.

depends. 1) replacing 20 year old roof at $3000 every 20 years =~ $15,000 every 100 years. 2) replacing every 30 years $3000 + $1500 in additional damage =~ $13,500 every 100 years. 3) replace every 50 years and patch as needed $3000 +$3000 in patching over the years =~ $12,000 every 100 years.

citation: http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+roof+repairs

The average cost for a 1500 to 2,000 square foot 20 to 30 year roof in Eastern WA will run you from $18,000 to $30,000 and when they mean 20 or 30 years the true length of time is below 15 and 25 years respectfully.

depends.
1) replacing 20 year old roof at $3000 every 20 years =~ $15,000 every 100 years.
2) replacing every 30 years $3000 + $1500 in additional damage =~ $13,500 every 100 years.
3) replace every 50 years and patch as needed $3000 +$3000 in patching over the years =~ $12,000 every 100 years.

citation:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+roof+repairs

That's sad, as 'data' is quite happy (in so far as nouns have emotions) to be singular depending on context/use case:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data

And despite what reference.com says about the plural form being predominant in scientific/academic writing, I see it written as singular quite often.

E.g.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anature.com+"data+was"
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asciencemag.org+"data+was"

That's not to say that GP is right in calling wtf on the plural form, of course.

That's sad, as 'data' is quite happy (in so far as nouns have emotions) to be singular depending on context/use case:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/data
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data

And despite what reference.com says about the plural form being predominant in scientific/academic writing, I see it written as singular quite often.

E.g.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anature.com+"data+was"
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asciencemag.org+"data+was"

That's not to say that GP is right in calling wtf on the plural form, of course.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_thread/thread/76536d1fb451ac60/b813d52cbc5a044b?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Torvalds%22+group:comp.os.minix#b813d52cbc5a044b

Since we're discussing Apache anyway... I've used Apache for over a decade now. Right now I'm working on a Pyramid app and publishing it with mod_wsgi on Apache 2.2, for no other reason than that I'm already familiar with Apache. Since this is a brand new project and will be running on its own dedicated server - and therefore doesn't have play nicely with any pre-existing web apps - I wanted to re-evaluate my decision. If you needed to publish a WSGI app today, what server would you use and why?

Thank you for creating Slashdot - the world's premier web site for discussion of technical issues.

Vernor Vinge dedicates "Rainbow's End" to "To the Internet-based cognitive tools that are changing our lives - Wikipedia, Google, eBay, and the others of their kind, now and in the future." I believe Slashdot should be added to that list as the most important divergent collaborative tool available on the internet.

Slashdot is a brainstorming tool that generates lots of new ideas, then evaluates them, and presents the results to the reader in a number of formats. Slashdot's implicit view of truth corresponds to the scientific method. In its purest form every comment to a story on Slashdot can be thought as either 1) a hypothesis with supporting data or 2) a counterexample which attempts to nullify a hypothesis. One way to look at Slashdot is as an internet implementation of the scientific method in action.

One of the unique aspects of Slashdot that make it the premier news forum for discussing technical issues on the internet and differentiates Slashdot from similar forums like Digg and Reddit is that stories that appear on the front page of Slashdot are editor-selected while the stories that appear on their front pages of other popular tech discussion web sites are user selected which tends to drive the discussion to a lowest common denominator.

Editor selection of stories tends to maintain a good level of quality of the stories that make it to the front page and gives Slashdot a unique editorial voice. There are some types of stories that routinely show up on other tech discussion sites, that slashdot editors simply will not accept. Slashdot's editors stay away from juvenile material and WTF stories and present an editorial voice of serious consideration of the issues raised.

Thanks again for your defining role in creating the best web site in the world for the serious discussion of technical issues. Your role has been crucial and you will always be remembered.

Why I enjoy writing for Slashdot.

I love Python, don't get me wrong, but it is nowhere near Java regarding raw performance. Even the developers acknowledge this, with stuff like the Google sponsored Unladen swallow and PyPy.

Haven't toyed much with Ruby these days though. I should :)

I left Geeknet aka all the other names Rob has typed already nearly exactly a year ago now, and had stopped really posting on Slashdot prior to that but the work, creation and launching of Slashdot remains one of the best things that has ever happened to me. Rob and I went to the same middle school, high school, college and had the joy of working together for well over a decade; I've been very lucky to have worked with him and the other friends we started with.

Rob and I became friends not actually because of being in the same school, though we knew each other that way. We because friends when we both had modems and got on the BBSes, and that desire to have a place to share news and stuff with friends was what I think Slashdot has done well with. Bringing together the people who have the love of technology in their blood. Rob is really really good at that, and working with him and the rest of the folks has been on honor and privilege.

We've had some good wedding times and some burnination times (Chris, I forgot about the cell phone. That makes me giggle.) And while I could go on and on, then I'll turn maudlin and no one wants that.

I started at Google just over a week ago now, and love what I'm doing -- and I think that's the most important lesson I learned from Slashdot. You won't always like what you are doing but if you working on something you love and with good people around you, that's worth a lot.

If you care to see me poke fun of Rob, you can find me on Twitter as (the imaginatively named) @hemos, or find me on Google Plus as Jeffrey Bates

Thanks for the fun, Rob. We done good.

"Boy, was that company suckered."

That's John Dvorak in his last column for Infoworld 1985 when Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jC8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=%2Bdvorak+steve+jobs+leaving+apple+1985+infoworld+suckered&source=bl&ots=pJ8NZY9Wgv&sig=2YM64qODziCzfzYWR3lYJ6Zhu2U&hl=en&ei=t_xVTr6iDsb54QS3l52jDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA

In 1997 Michael Dell added "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders".
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-203937.html

How could they be so wrong? They weren't. Steve Jobs just had luck, plenty of it.

I suspect the haters in this thread never actually build anything themselves - nor will amount to anything in their collective, sad lives. https://plus.google.com/107117483540235115863/posts/gcSStkKxXTw

It seems like you are trying to imply that anyone has suggested these systems for mass production of parts. No one has.

Yes, people have. Look up "personal fabrication revolution" for some of the looser talk on the subject.

According to http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/ they are headquartered in Mountain View, CA and they are providing "high speed" internet access for free to Palo Alto (only a few miles away)

Attaching a high-speed link like this is relatively easy (and cheap), now if they do this for free to some uni on the opposite coast or very far away I will be more impressed.

Yeah, from what I've seen Angry Birds sounds like it'd be for the Pocoyo demographic.* Heck, Pocoyo even has an Angry Bird as one of the characters.

* Not that there's anything wrong with that. Even Pocoyo has a so-called periphery demographic.

I just can't remember what it looks like. I have a vague sense that its a solid green bar (lighter in colour) with something bouncing back & forth, but I might be mixing it up with something else.

You're right. A search on "windows barber pole" led me to the "Marquee" control in Windows forms at MSDN. It looks like blank progress bar where a 20-40% width marker made up of tiny green progress bars slide back and forth like a train. Think about the red scanner sensor effect in front of Kitt, the AI car in Knight Rider. I first saw it used in Netscape 6 for Windows, IIRC.

How about this one. In hindsight, I'd call it pretty obvious.

I wouldn't call it "pretty obvious", but I would say that we definitely need to go back to the "supply a working model" requirement for patents like this. Otherwise, anybody can just put together a few things that may or may not be "obvious", but could eventually hamstring an industry, since the patent would be much broader than any actual device.

Yeah, that's a brilliant idea. That would totally stop people from getting silly patents: Apple, you can't patent this new innovation on the iPhone unless you can supply a working iPhone! And Amazon, say goodbye to your "1-click" patent unless you can show a system where people can purchase from your website via a single click!
You're right - that would be an incredibly high bar for people to cross and would surely end all of these patents.

An invention is not new if a single piece of prior art discloses each and every element in the claimed invention.

Which leads to so many stupid patents of the form "...with a computer" or "...on the Internet".

[Citation needed]. Please find even a single issued patent where the key to patentability was either "... with a computer" or "... on the internet". If you say there are "so many," you must be able to find one.

Rather, they have to explicitly list the prior art references that can be combined to teach each and every element of the invention.

So, what you're saying is that because nobody has patented "a computer" or "the Internet", all those stupid patents can't be rejected because "they're not obvious". Well, that explains the mess we're in.

Computers aren't patented? Huh. News to me.

How about this one. In hindsight, I'd call it pretty obvious.

I wouldn't call it "pretty obvious", but I would say that we definitely need to go back to the "supply a working model" requirement for patents like this. Otherwise, anybody can just put together a few things that may or may not be "obvious", but could eventually hamstring an industry, since the patent would be much broader than any actual device.

There's no such thing as an anti-gravity engine, that's how.

How do you know that, Mr. Patent Examiner? 60 years ago there was no such thing as a touchscreen. Moreover, I don't see how that even factors into the patent. Let me check the Apple patent again.

Let's see.. it's a United States Design Patent from 2005. It covers an "electronic device", and has 14 inventors who have invented the groundbreaking new design for this device, which is electronic (and also looks a lot like my phone, which incidentally Apple didn't design). It's assigned to Apple Computer, Inc., of California, for a term of 14 years. It has an application number and filing date. There are a couple reference numbers, a field of search, references cited by the examiner, other publications, and, ah, here we go, the claim:

"We claim the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described."

OK, vague enough that we're still in the bounds of my fictional anti-gravity "rocket". After that, just a list of illustrations. I'm not seeing a single place where it lists any of the functionality of the device. They don't say whether it's powered by a hamster on a wheel, or a thermonuclear battery. They don't say whether the touchscreen is capacitive, or whether it sends out a magnetic field and just detects the presence of your finger in that field from several inches away (in fact, other than the illustration of the guy kind of pointing at it, there's no indication it's a touchscreen at all). They don't say whether you have to plug it in to charge it, or whether you can just leave it out in the sun. So why does it matter what kind of engine my fake rocket uses?

You don't understand what a design patent is, do you?

I know it's not a utility patent, so it doesn't have anything to do with how my rocket works, just how it looks.

With your proposed magic engine I guess it could, but it'd still fly better within an atmosphere with the point in front. That's aerodynamics, see?

*scoff* clearly you understand nothing about anti-gravity technology. While encased in the anti-gravity bubble, there is no air resistance to deal with. The bubble doesn't move through the air, it moves the air around it. There is no disturbance after it passes, all of the air molecules are just the same as before it passed. Aerodynamics are so 20th century. My cone and fins are purely ornamental. Just approve the patent and get on with your day, thanks. It's what everyone else does anyway.

For those interested in where this is actually happening, here's a forum thread which has locations (with map) and descriptions for a tournament this weekend
Barcraft Thread
Barcraft Location Map

Some locations: Seattle WA, Toronto, San Diego CA, Washington DC, New York City, Portland OR, Tampa FL, Gainesville FL, Edmonton (Canada), Honolulu, Waterloo (Canada), Chicago, Boston, Dallas TX

I disagree. I think things that should be patentable are not obvious, even in hindsight. Pick your favorite patent that's "obvious in hindsight" that you think should be patentable, so people can try to falsify your viewpoint. Talking in abstractions as you are makes it impossible to argue against you directly, which means both sides just talk past each other.

Sure. How about this one. In hindsight, I'd call it pretty obvious. But at the time, no one had thought of it.
Your turn - things that are obvious in hindsight include every pharmaceutical, by definition, as well as nearly all mechanical inventions, from the steam engine to the airplane. You claim that these shouldn't be patentable. Why not?

Because not everything that is obvious is patented? Like this one,

A computerized list is provided with auxiliary pointers for traversing the list in different sequences. One or more auxiliary pointers enable a fast, sequential traversal of the list with a minimum of computational time. Such lists may be used in any application where lists may be reordered for various purposes.

This is not a new idea, but it was issued in 2006! But I guess it is easier to just treat the patent office database as the complete repository of all knowledge in the world rather than actually THINK about whether it is a valid patent or not.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Let's see, Apple's patent contains no more substance than the movie; it is just a bunch of pictures of a hypothetical device (it doesn't even look much like the current iPad). It is so generic that there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left.

It's a design patent. It only claims the aesthetic features shown in the figures. It's not allowed to have any substance, by definition. It's not generic at all - it explicitly claims what's in those pictures, and that's it.

You can't patent the iconic representation of a function or a tool. Oh you can? Well, sucks to have your patent laws.

Example: The universal iconic representation of "configuration" have always been a wrench or a gear

So whos the first that ever designed that icon? Probably Xerox or Apple (even MS) Can they sue the whole world for using the same concept?. The point of an UI icon formerly known as Pictogram is precisely to represent an action with an universally significant sign. Theres a fucking science about it predating the invention of user interfaces by centuries.

I could not care less about Apple or Samsung bitchfight, this could set a dangerous precedent where someones would patent certain graphic design common places prompting the design world to workaround in hideous ways. Would you like your new Snail-Shape on--off icon? No? good luck only on SONY stuff. How about that men bathroom icon, did you got confused because it's shape of a blob with 3 eyes and what looks like an umbrella? Oh! theres no other restroom in 20 km ahead.

If Apple is pretending to enforce such nonsense they are pissing in the pool that they like to brag about so much, the design pool. Not that the lame shopped hack to make the Tab look like the iPad is something that one would expect from a "company conscious and caring about design".

Hey apple your antics are hurting your image in the subset of the market that helped you to stay afloat before you developed something decent. Think different but act like Microsoft. Yes I'm a sore Apple exfanboy, when you actually had to have a Mac Desktop to be a fanboy and You actually created shit on your hardware, not the wanker and hipster bunch that Apple fandom is today.

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

It's one of the design patents Apple is claiming.

Apple is also claiming other design patents:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=odPbAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=bRvVAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Icons are eligible for design patents (OS X's wire trash icon is an example), however the iOS icons are registered as trade dress; I've been unable to find design patents for them and it's unlikely that Apple wouldn't have made claims against them.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_SopAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85018959
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019831
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85020006
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019396
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85019809
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78382867 (OS X, not iOS, but it'll be hard to argue the media player icon for Samsung's devices isn't a copy).

Is it apparently lost on Samsung and the frothing-at-the-mouth haters that the patents in question are not about making a touchscreen tablet, but is about using the following graphic design elements:
* A sunflower for the 'photos' app
* A white cartoon bubble with a green background for SMS
* A calendar icon with a red bar on top, and black text showing the current day
* An envelope icon against a cloudy sky
* A notebook with a brown binding on top

Just to be clear, you're saying that Apple invented all of those icons for those uses, and patented that. Correct? You're saying that Apple has a patent on using a sunflower to represent a "photos app". And you have a link to that patent, right? Because as far as I can tell, this patent is what Apple is claiming.

No. What you say is completely false. Read the patent and see for yourself. (It will only take you a minute - it consists almost entirely of pictures.) You will not find any sunflower in it, any cartoon bubble, any envelope against a cloudy sky, or anything like that. What you'll find are very generic outlines of a tablet, where the front face is mostly taken up by a touch screen. And absolutely nothing else. That's the entire content of the patent. That's what this is about.

Simply wrong. This is a patent suit, not copyright or trademark. Have a look at the patent in question. THAT is what Apple is claiming they should have a worldwide exclusive right to.

That is what Samsung is countering by showing very similar designs from the '60s.

However, looking at the side by side of the icons, I remain unconvinced even there. The phone icon is predated by Bell using something like that on payphone pedestals for ages if Apple has a case against Samsung there, then Bell should sue Apple. Flowers of various sorts are commonly used for photo icons. Gears are likewise commonly used for configuration and such (If Apple has a case against Samsung on that one, then MS has a case against Apple).

I believe the claim that that this, this and this are all invalid due to prior art. None of these patents detail anything you listed, and all detail simple pictures of a tablet-like device almost identical in description to those in the film (and hundreds of others). So maybe you should just sit down and stop calling people names, huh?

I believe the claim that that this, this and this are all invalid due to prior art. None of these patents detail anything you listed, and all detail simple pictures of a tablet-like device almost identical in description to those in the film (and hundreds of others). So maybe you should just sit down and stop calling people names, huh?

I believe the claim that that this, this and this are all invalid due to prior art. None of these patents detail anything you listed, and all detail simple pictures of a tablet-like device almost identical in description to those in the film (and hundreds of others). So maybe you should just sit down and stop calling people names, huh?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Let's see, Apple's patent contains no more substance than the movie; it is just a bunch of pictures of a hypothetical device (it doesn't even look much like the current iPad). It is so generic that there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left .

You know it's generic. I know it's generic. The courts may know it's generic.

But that's not the issue here.

It's the goddamn PATENT OFFICE that doesn't have any idea.

They allowed the patent application to go through, didn't they?

https://www.google.com/support/music/bin/static.py?page=known_issues.cs

"Only two accounts can be used per computer"

http://www.google.com/patents?id=6BsWAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

Let's see, Apple's patent contains no more substance than the movie; it is just a bunch of pictures of a hypothetical device (it doesn't even look much like the current iPad). It is so generic that there is no way the courts will let it stand if they have any sanity left.

This might be somewhat helpful.

After a little coaxing Google translate shows that guy who uploaded thie video gave it this title: " [CCTV-7 military technology 2011-07-16] Internet Storm coming / Network War 2 / 2". Don't forget there's a part 1/2 to this video.

CCTV-7 is their "military/agricultural" cable channel.

We'll need someone who can speak Chinese here.

This is the building:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=111+devonshire+street+boston+ma&hl=en&ll=42.357169,-71.0573&spn=0.000746,0.001202&sll=42.357169,-71.0573&sspn=0.000746,0.001202&vpsrc=6&gl=us&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=42.357249,-71.057303&panoid=eIpAhc0HiY6VKt-IroN3fg&cbp=13,280.84,,0,-0.5

The building has just been cleared for reoccupation; the initial report of the building having shifted has proven false.

You're right. Here is a 12 minute YouTube video I made that talks about a balance between five interwoven economies that shifts with cultural change and technological change:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems. "

A PDF file of the presentation is here:
      http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf

Other related stuff by me:
    http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

But right now, pretty much not one gets this. Mainstream economists are in denial. They just assume infinite demand (not limits from environmentalism, voluntary simplicity, or a law of diminishing or negative returns), that robots and AI and better design and voluntary social networks can't replace most paid human labor, that wealth be evenly distributed (not centralized to the owners of capital), that the mean on the bell curve on IQ will suddenly jump globally from 100 (remember, half below) to 200 to everyone can have great high technology creative jobs, and so on.

Some alternative economists have called for change, but are so far mostly ignored:
    http://www.responsiblefinance.ch/

Anyway, I've put all my resources into understanding these issues and telling peopel about solutions to the point of my own family's economic collapse. But for the most part no one cares; well, I should really say, many people care do about the problem, or say they care, (especially when it effects them personally or someone they care about), but most people just want a solution that does not entail any substantial change to the status quo. It seems our current political and economic leadership would rather drive our society off a cliff to collapse rather than consider things like a basic income, expanded gift economy, better democratic resource based planning, promoting local subsistence via 3D printing and organic gardnening robots, and so on.

Anyway, there are solutions if we can find the collective social will to put them in place. Already the US averages about US$700 per month per citizen in payments for social security, schooling, unemployment, and disability. We could bring that up to US$1000 or even $2000 a month. And we could get rid of or shorten patents and copyrights and do other things to promote a gift economy. And so on. Someday we will probably do all those things or similar ones if we are to survive and thrive. It's just a question of how much suffering will happen before then.

But, as Martin Ford said, while military planners are planning for and funding the development of robots that can do tasks in unstructured battlefields, economists continue to assume robots and AI will never take over most work in a highly structured factory or office.

See also, by Marshall Brain:
    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Like for example all the developers who started complaining about not getting paid by Google and not getting any kind of response from Google by e-mail ?

Then Google locks down the forum and developers can kiss their ass or something.

I'd worry more about Google than alien oppression to be honest.