Fucking apple. Why can't they just join Open Mobile Alliance like everyone else and share the patents. In return they would get access to the whole pool of patents from the other companies.
Ah, I see that Microsoft is a (sponsor!) member of the OMA. That must mean they can't sue other members like Samsung, HTC and Huawei.
Digitude is a new kind of patent investment vehicle because it seeks to team up with strategic players that can invest in Digitude not with money, but by contributing patents. The contributing entity would then get a license for all of Digitude’s patents, [Digitude Chairman Robert] Kramer says.
That doesn't really fit the modus operandi of a "patent troll". It sounds more like they're setting up a patent pool similar to MPEG LA.
Personally, I'd love to see these smartphone-related patents in the hands of a neutral party, rather than their current owners: manufacturers constantly trying to screw their competitors.
There will always be general use pc's for those who are willing and have to skills to handle them responsibly..
Sorry, but this is Slashdot, where we have to see the world in absolutes. Despite antitrust and consumer protection laws, soon *every* device will be made by [Apple|Google|Microsoft] and the entire world will be subject to that company's terrible machinations. Everyone who purchases one of those companies' products is immanentizing this monoculture eschaton, thus we are justified in hating these people for their part in curtailing our future personal freedoms.
the vanilla Android devices (Nexus line) don't ship with the CarrierIQ software, which means that either the handset manufacturers or, much more likely given the US-centric focus, the carriers are responsible for installing it.
...Which is a very good point. Google gives not only end users but also manufacturers and carriers relatively free reign over Android phones. Apple retains much more control over the iPhone.
While it's easy to see how Apple's strategy can hurt power users, Google's strategy can hurt users also.
Just give them uTorrent - the gift that keeps on giving!
Seriously, though, are we talking about freeware or Free Open Source Software? There's a lot of great freeware out there; applications like Picasa, utilities like Piriform's set, games like Cave Story (a.k.a. Doukutsu Monotogari). I hope you're not ruling out closed source, since your friends and family really won't care about the difference.
Also, you should probably start by looking for popular downloads on sites like FileHippo, SourceForge, and even (groan) Download.com. There are also quite a few commercial games that were later released as freeware or free-to-play; Team Fortress 2 is a prime example.
What would it take? Dieter Rams. Egmont Arens. Henry Dreyfuss. Designers. Not developers, or developers who think they're designers, but good skilled designers.
Good software designers create libraries and APIs that practically write developers' code for them—and encourage them to use clean, tested, sensible and consistent frameworks rather than roll their own solutions. It makes coding a joy and helps build the base of high-quality software any aspiring operating system needs. Using a common view framework will also help give applications consistent UIs, making them easier for the user to learn.
Good interface designers make programs intuitive. Well-designed interfaces speak to the user. They say "This is my function. Here is what is relevant to you right now. You may not know how to use me yet, but if you imagine how I ought to work, I'm actually a lot like that. And if you fiddle with my buttons, switches and dials—which I know you're dying to do—I'll give you good feedback and you'll figure me out in no time."
Unfortunately, this sort of design is the one place where Linux always seems to fall flat on its face. Part of this is the democratic nature of Linux, which is intended to be a completely un-designed piece of raw material for smart people to build their own designs from. (And anyone trying to "fix" that lack of design, I've noticed, draws the ire of the militant wing of the free-as-in-libre crowd...who seem to interpret any rules made anywhere by anyone as a personal attack on their freedom). Even Linux distros, which do at least add some level of order and design, still leave a great deal of control to the application developer for the sake of compatibility and flexibility (and *cough* freetard appeasement). As a result, using even a "friendly" and "modern" distro like Ubuntu inevitably involves learning a mishmash of inconsistent UIs, hunting for obvious things in obscure places (library folders? config files? Unity's menu bar?), and even running cryptic terminal commands which can cause major damage with a simple typo. It's bad design—very bad design—and very few people are willing to endure that.
If any Linux distro ever wants to achieve mainstream success, they need to hire some real designers, put them in a room full of timeless furniture, appliances, and gadgets, then tell them they can't come out until they've made the operating system that Braun would have sold in the 1960s.
The word Scotch, meaning either ‘of or relating to Scotland’ or ‘a person/the people from Scotland,’ was widely used in the past by Scottish writers such as Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott. In the 20th century, it became less common. It is disliked by many Scottish people (as being an ‘English’ invention) and is now regarded as old-fashioned in most contexts. It survives in certain fixed phrases, as, for example, Scotch broth and Scotch whisky.
It makes a bit more sense when you know that iOS devices don't have a traditional filesystem; files are owned and controlled by specific applications, and iBooks is the default application for storing and working with PDF files. Thus, "Open in iBooks" is Apple's way of saying "Save PDF to device", and the whole process could be rephrased as:
* Open PDF in Safari * Save the PDF to your device * Go to where the PDF is stored (this step is automatic) * Email the PDF.
Of course, this all assumes you need to download the PDF and send it as an attachment. If you just need to send a link, the process is much faster—tap the "action" button in Safari and tap "Mail Link to this Page".
According to the Army requirements, the robot has to have about the same weight and dimensions of a 50th percentile male (the size of a standard crash-test dummy), or a mass of 80 kilograms (about 180 pounds) and height of about 1.75 meters (nearly 6 feet). PETMAN also has to simulate respiration, sweating, and changes in skin temperature based on the amount of physical exertion. Boston Dynamics used motion-capture systems to study the movements of humans as they performed a variety of exercises.
The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013
The armed forces say they’ve been successful testing fuels produced from sources as diverse as animal fat, frying oils and camelina, an oil-bearing plant that’s relatively drought- and freeze-resistant.
“We can use an almost unlimited number of feedstocks to produce these fuels,” said Braun. “From a performance stand- point you can’t tell the difference whether you’re burning a camelina blend, a tallow blend, or another fuel that’s made up of a bunch of waste greases -- fry grease or seasoning grease.”
Fats may be either solid or liquid at room temperature, depending on their structure and composition. Although the words "oils", "fats", and "lipids" are all used to refer to fats, "oils" is usually used to refer to fats that are liquids at normal room temperature, while "fats" is usually used to refer to fats that are solids at normal room temperature. "Lipids" is used to refer to both liquid and solid fats, along with other related substances, usually in a medical or biochemical context. The word "oil" is also used for any substance that does not mix with water and has a greasy feel, such as petroleum (or crude oil), heating oil, and essential oils, regardless of its chemical structure.
The confusing point is that "oil" is a very generic term. They're switching from using fuel derived from petroleum (which is an "oil" but definitely not fat) to fuel derived from various renewable sources (many of which are oils and most of which are fats).
Okay, now a drought occurs and your harvesters work just as hard but collect only half as much hay.
Now to keep prices constant you have to ration the hay when it goes to market. Otherwise, the first buyers would grab up all the hay for a low price, leaving the rest to starve.
Then you have to subsidize the harvesters, since they did just as much work but got half the pay. Of course, then you have to find a way to pay for that subsidy: You can tax everybody, which would upset people who don't use hay, or you can just put a tax on hay, which would leave you with a very inefficient form of supply and demand pricing...the very thing you were trying to avoid in the first place.
Similarly, let's say somebody invents a new "gas guzzler" SUV that uses twice as much fuel (and thus oil) as current vehicles. Oil is fairly cheap and the price is locked to your currency, so people have no problem affording the extra fuel. The vehicle becomes hugely popular and soon oil production can't keep up with demand. Shortages and long lines abound, and industries shudder to a halt as they compete with cars for the oil supply. You again set up rationing plans and subsidies and end up with an inefficient and artificial version of supply and demand.
If it makes you feel better, plenty of dictators have had the same idea. The idea certainly sells well to the bread-and-circuses public, and as long as you can find someone else to blame for the inevitable shortages and rationing, you can string people along on a policy like this for decades.
Why blow money on developing vaccines? There are plenty of sick people today—vaccines won't help them now! Why are we spending our resources treating healthy people, instead of curing those who are already sick?
Why try to prevent crime? There are plenty of criminals walking the streets today! Improved social programs and education will take generations to show effects. We should instead put all our money toward bringing existing criminals to justice, so we can have cleaner streets today!
I could keep going, but it's absurd to think that we should only use mitigation and ignore prevention, when the latter is far more effective over the long term. Furthermore, geoengineering on a massive scale will be both massively expensive and probably lead to other consequences down the road*.
...Also, regarding your analogy, there's a bear here who would like to have words with you.
(*) It's funny how AGW deniers like to claim that the climate model is so complex that we have no idea if mankind is affecting the environment at all, then turn around and claim that we could cool the planet with geoengineering easily and without adverse effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Fucking apple. Why can't they just join Open Mobile Alliance like everyone else and share the patents. In return they would get access to the whole pool of patents from the other companies.
Ah, I see that Microsoft is a (sponsor!) member of the OMA. That must mean they can't sue other members like Samsung, HTC and Huawei.
Digitude is a new kind of patent investment vehicle because it seeks to team up with strategic players that can invest in Digitude not with money, but by contributing patents. The contributing entity would then get a license for all of Digitude’s patents, [Digitude Chairman Robert] Kramer says.
That doesn't really fit the modus operandi of a "patent troll". It sounds more like they're setting up a patent pool similar to MPEG LA.
Personally, I'd love to see these smartphone-related patents in the hands of a neutral party, rather than their current owners: manufacturers constantly trying to screw their competitors.
a significant performance improvement with decoding of unprotected content using the GPU
So it's great for everything you don't use Silverlight for.
Maybe they'll just use cool lighting.
Well, "DEADBEEF" is a bit of a giveaway.
There will always be general use pc's for those who are willing and have to skills to handle them responsibly..
Sorry, but this is Slashdot, where we have to see the world in absolutes. Despite antitrust and consumer protection laws, soon *every* device will be made by [Apple|Google|Microsoft] and the entire world will be subject to that company's terrible machinations. Everyone who purchases one of those companies' products is immanentizing this monoculture eschaton, thus we are justified in hating these people for their part in curtailing our future personal freedoms.
Also, all restaurants will be Taco Bell.
the vanilla Android devices (Nexus line) don't ship with the CarrierIQ software, which means that either the handset manufacturers or, much more likely given the US-centric focus, the carriers are responsible for installing it.
...Which is a very good point. Google gives not only end users but also manufacturers and carriers relatively free reign over Android phones. Apple retains much more control over the iPhone.
While it's easy to see how Apple's strategy can hurt power users, Google's strategy can hurt users also.
Murder by remote control has been around since the invention of...well...probably the rock. Or language, depending on your definition.
Just give them uTorrent - the gift that keeps on giving!
Seriously, though, are we talking about freeware or Free Open Source Software? There's a lot of great freeware out there; applications like Picasa, utilities like Piriform's set, games like Cave Story (a.k.a. Doukutsu Monotogari). I hope you're not ruling out closed source, since your friends and family really won't care about the difference.
Also, you should probably start by looking for popular downloads on sites like FileHippo, SourceForge, and even (groan) Download.com. There are also quite a few commercial games that were later released as freeware or free-to-play; Team Fortress 2 is a prime example.
Consumer pricing has not yet been established, but product is expected to be available in volumes the second half of 2012.
Because this calibration field is for our satellites. We outsourced it. We also outsourced the satellites.
I know just the people you should talk to.
What would it take? Dieter Rams. Egmont Arens. Henry Dreyfuss. Designers. Not developers, or developers who think they're designers, but good skilled designers.
Good software designers create libraries and APIs that practically write developers' code for them—and encourage them to use clean, tested, sensible and consistent frameworks rather than roll their own solutions. It makes coding a joy and helps build the base of high-quality software any aspiring operating system needs. Using a common view framework will also help give applications consistent UIs, making them easier for the user to learn.
Good interface designers make programs intuitive. Well-designed interfaces speak to the user. They say "This is my function. Here is what is relevant to you right now. You may not know how to use me yet, but if you imagine how I ought to work, I'm actually a lot like that. And if you fiddle with my buttons, switches and dials—which I know you're dying to do—I'll give you good feedback and you'll figure me out in no time."
Unfortunately, this sort of design is the one place where Linux always seems to fall flat on its face. Part of this is the democratic nature of Linux, which is intended to be a completely un-designed piece of raw material for smart people to build their own designs from. (And anyone trying to "fix" that lack of design, I've noticed, draws the ire of the militant wing of the free-as-in-libre crowd...who seem to interpret any rules made anywhere by anyone as a personal attack on their freedom). Even Linux distros, which do at least add some level of order and design, still leave a great deal of control to the application developer for the sake of compatibility and flexibility (and *cough* freetard appeasement). As a result, using even a "friendly" and "modern" distro like Ubuntu inevitably involves learning a mishmash of inconsistent UIs, hunting for obvious things in obscure places (library folders? config files? Unity's menu bar?), and even running cryptic terminal commands which can cause major damage with a simple typo. It's bad design—very bad design—and very few people are willing to endure that.
If any Linux distro ever wants to achieve mainstream success, they need to hire some real designers, put them in a room full of timeless furniture, appliances, and gadgets, then tell them they can't come out until they've made the operating system that Braun would have sold in the 1960s.
Actually, yes; I think the Windows codebase still has the odd hcf here and there.
The word Scotch, meaning either ‘of or relating to Scotland’ or ‘a person/the people from Scotland,’ was widely used in the past by Scottish writers such as Robert Burns and Sir Walter Scott. In the 20th century, it became less common. It is disliked by many Scottish people (as being an ‘English’ invention) and is now regarded as old-fashioned in most contexts. It survives in certain fixed phrases, as, for example, Scotch broth and Scotch whisky.
It makes a bit more sense when you know that iOS devices don't have a traditional filesystem; files are owned and controlled by specific applications, and iBooks is the default application for storing and working with PDF files. Thus, "Open in iBooks" is Apple's way of saying "Save PDF to device", and the whole process could be rephrased as:
* Open PDF in Safari
* Save the PDF to your device
* Go to where the PDF is stored (this step is automatic)
* Email the PDF.
Of course, this all assumes you need to download the PDF and send it as an attachment. If you just need to send a link, the process is much faster—tap the "action" button in Safari and tap "Mail Link to this Page".
Just in time for it to finish loading.
(I kid, I kid...)
Would it be so hard to suspend the pilot's chair underneath that mass of spinning rotors? I dub this thing "The Impaler".
According to the Army requirements, the robot has to have about the same weight and dimensions of a 50th percentile male (the size of a standard crash-test dummy), or a mass of 80 kilograms (about 180 pounds) and height of about 1.75 meters (nearly 6 feet). PETMAN also has to simulate respiration, sweating, and changes in skin temperature based on the amount of physical exertion. Boston Dynamics used motion-capture systems to study the movements of humans as they performed a variety of exercises.
Yep.
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/fisker-scores-529m-doe-loan-to-start-project-nina/
Actually, the loan is for both vehicles, though the Karma was always intended to be assembled overseas.
It's sad that anyone with Google and a couple spare minutes can do a better job of vetting stories than the Slashdot editors.
From TFA:
The U.S. Air Force is set to certify all of its 40-plus aircraft models to burn fuels derived from waste oils and plants by 2013
The armed forces say they’ve been successful testing fuels produced from sources as diverse as animal fat, frying oils and camelina, an oil-bearing plant that’s relatively drought- and freeze-resistant.
“We can use an almost unlimited number of feedstocks to produce these fuels,” said Braun. “From a performance stand- point you can’t tell the difference whether you’re burning a camelina blend, a tallow blend, or another fuel that’s made up of a bunch of waste greases -- fry grease or seasoning grease.”
And from TFW
Fats may be either solid or liquid at room temperature, depending on their structure and composition. Although the words "oils", "fats", and "lipids" are all used to refer to fats, "oils" is usually used to refer to fats that are liquids at normal room temperature, while "fats" is usually used to refer to fats that are solids at normal room temperature. "Lipids" is used to refer to both liquid and solid fats, along with other related substances, usually in a medical or biochemical context. The word "oil" is also used for any substance that does not mix with water and has a greasy feel, such as petroleum (or crude oil), heating oil, and essential oils, regardless of its chemical structure.
The confusing point is that "oil" is a very generic term. They're switching from using fuel derived from petroleum (which is an "oil" but definitely not fat) to fuel derived from various renewable sources (many of which are oils and most of which are fats).
Okay, now a drought occurs and your harvesters work just as hard but collect only half as much hay.
Now to keep prices constant you have to ration the hay when it goes to market. Otherwise, the first buyers would grab up all the hay for a low price, leaving the rest to starve.
Then you have to subsidize the harvesters, since they did just as much work but got half the pay. Of course, then you have to find a way to pay for that subsidy: You can tax everybody, which would upset people who don't use hay, or you can just put a tax on hay, which would leave you with a very inefficient form of supply and demand pricing...the very thing you were trying to avoid in the first place.
Similarly, let's say somebody invents a new "gas guzzler" SUV that uses twice as much fuel (and thus oil) as current vehicles. Oil is fairly cheap and the price is locked to your currency, so people have no problem affording the extra fuel. The vehicle becomes hugely popular and soon oil production can't keep up with demand. Shortages and long lines abound, and industries shudder to a halt as they compete with cars for the oil supply. You again set up rationing plans and subsidies and end up with an inefficient and artificial version of supply and demand.
If it makes you feel better, plenty of dictators have had the same idea. The idea certainly sells well to the bread-and-circuses public, and as long as you can find someone else to blame for the inevitable shortages and rationing, you can string people along on a policy like this for decades.
In a week, lousy mobile providers band together and adopt the new slogan: "Our Networks Save Lives".
A "feet of drones" is the proper collective noun only when they're on the ground. In the air they're known as a "bungle".
Why blow money on developing vaccines? There are plenty of sick people today—vaccines won't help them now! Why are we spending our resources treating healthy people, instead of curing those who are already sick?
Why try to prevent crime? There are plenty of criminals walking the streets today! Improved social programs and education will take generations to show effects. We should instead put all our money toward bringing existing criminals to justice, so we can have cleaner streets today!
I could keep going, but it's absurd to think that we should only use mitigation and ignore prevention, when the latter is far more effective over the long term. Furthermore, geoengineering on a massive scale will be both massively expensive and probably lead to other consequences down the road*.
...Also, regarding your analogy, there's a bear here who would like to have words with you.
(*) It's funny how AGW deniers like to claim that the climate model is so complex that we have no idea if mankind is affecting the environment at all, then turn around and claim that we could cool the planet with geoengineering easily and without adverse effects.