Slashdot Mirror

Obligatory Hijinks Ensue

http://hijinksensue.com/2011/04/04/not-my-hero/

and Steve Jobs is not going to show up with a baseball bat.>

Everyone knows he uses an iPhone for that.

Hmm, I wonder how that would work...

with game-changing technologies like the iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and iPad.

A - nothing "game changing" about ANY of those.
MP3 players (both hardware and software) existed for years before iPod.
So did mobile phones - many of them far better and more innovative than iPhone. FFS how many generations was it before iPhone was able to use MMS and copy/paste?
And iPad is nothing more than a big iPod. Again... tablets have been around for years before that.

Yes, Google did develop a nice email system and some mapping software, but these were incremental innovations.

B - Seriously? Some mapping software?
Was there actually something like Google Maps and Google Earth before Google released those? Something that I'm not aware of?
For free, might I add. Just like that "nice email system" that made mailbox sizes a thing of the past.
When was the last time Apple or MS gave away anything like that for free?

And C - ScuttleMonkey is basically contradicting himself.
First he goes on how patents are bad and tosses around an example of Apple and "over 1000 patents" connected to the iPhone.
Then, he goes on about patents being inherently bad for the "innovators" - and again tossing around an example of Apple as an innovator.

Well gosh darn! Apple must be magical like their commercials claim.
Not only is it an innovator, but a behemoth who is an innovator AND one that is immune to the patent-poison too.

And then he ends it all on a piece de resistance of this whole ordeal by making patents OK - but only if you are a startup.

Simply put, if we are serious about lifting the economy out of its rut, we need to focus all of our energy on helping entrepreneurs.
Provide them with the incentives (tax breaks and seed financing); education; and infrastructure.
And gear public policy--like patent-protection laws--toward the startups.

Not sure how is that supposed to work though.
Only startups get to patent things?
"Behemoths" like MS, Apple, Google, IBM etc. will not be allowed to buy patents? Or startups?
What good would it do to a startup then to patent anything unless they can sell or license it to make much needed cash?
And what will happen to a startup that grows into a "behemoth"? Google was a startup too about a decade ago.

Should startups and "behemoths" REALLY be forced to choose between making a profit and innovating - through legislation?
Gee... I wonder which path would they choose.

Can't see how this will be of ANY use in court.
I mean, you could prove that almost anyone is Jack the fucking Ripper.

And anyone with History Channel is probably Hitler Himself by now.

I guess he is probably injecting 3D movie-juice into his eyes already?

Actually, his name being something like Tux on speed, make that VERY probably...

The lesser-known Hijinks Ensue reference: A Crisis of Faith

I was wondering if Scilon was going to catch on. For me, this is my first sighting "in the wild". Kudos!

Apparently the Cloverfield monster did something to her mouth. It's a cartoon that explains it all in graphic detail.