Richard Muller is a lot of things (a fairly good scientist for one), and the press keeps insisting he's a "former skeptic," but nobody seems to be able to find anything he's ever said that put him in the "skeptic" camp
He was skeptical about the historical temperature record (which is why he launched this project in the first place). Does that not make him a "skeptic"?
Except there was no Sony to design to copy. That mock up is one 100% designed by apple.
There were numerous Sony devices around at the time that were moving towards a more simplistic, button-less touchscreen design with rounded corners. This fact, along with those particular design design features, were noted in the Sony interview.
This is false on 2 counts because there were no scarped plans
The Apple designer who created the "Sony design" has testified that his design changed the course of the project, the existing design was scrapped, and his was adopted instead.
Having implemented OAuth1.0 and 2.0 services for communicating with various platforms, I was amazed at the lack of any security in Oauth 2.0. As mentioned by others, it completely relies on SSL/TLS
Apple's internal emails apparently show that they copied Sony's designs.
Found the details. Apple’s iPhone Has Sony Style, Says Samsung (Full Trial Brief). The emails show an iPhone designer being instructed to create a "Sony-like" design, the initial CAD drawings he created even had the Sony logo on. The emails then show the existing iPhone design being abandoned for the new "Sony" design, and the Apple designer has given sworn testimony that his "Sony-style" design changed the course of the project and led to the final iPhone design.
As the summary and article state plainly, Samsung made what amounts to a copy of the iPad.
The article and summary also point out that Apple's internal emails apparently show that they copied Sony's designs. If that is true, it will be interesting to see how Sony respond.
Also interesting to note that Samsung have produced their own before and after graphic for the court, which disproves the Apple fan claims that "all Samsung phones look like the iPhone".
Around 1/2 of the US population has at least one gun in their home. The NRA indirectly represents those people as well as the others that support the right to bear arms but don't happen to have any. Ultimately that means they represent over half the population.
A new survey, by Republican pollster Frank Luntz and commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of over 400 mayors, even more dramatically contradicts the conventional political wisdom on the gun issue. Not only does the NRA not represent the views of gun owners on major issues of gun policy; it doesn't even represent the views of its own membership. For example, the Luntz survey found that 69% of self-described NRA members agree that all gun sellers at gun shows should be required to conduct criminal background checks on prospective buyers, a reform that would close the infamous "gun show loophole". Luntz found that 82% of NRA members support "prohibiting persons on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Seventy-eight percent of NRA members support "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." All of these measures are vehemently opposed by the NRA.
if you actually read the article this is just some bullshit proof of concept made by a anti-virus company to shake down mac users.
Yeah, no, that's not what it says. Maybe you should read the article.
So how exactly were they wrong?
The article does not claim that this is a "bullshit proof of concept made by a anti-virus company to shake down mac users". That is how the original poster was wrong.
AFAIK, there are several issues: Windows 8 won't allow side-loading of apps on ARM computers, so Steam is going to be completely locked out of Microsoft's big ARM push, including the MS Surface tablet which might be popular. W8 also won't allow side loading of Metro apps at all (unless you are a developer or enterprise) and so if developers want to use Metro features, then they won't be able to distribute via Steam. If W8 on ARM is popular, and say 25% of sales are on that platform, then Steam is going to be a lot less useful as a distribution platform because developers are going to want to target ARM devices, and since they're forced to build and distribute via the Windows Store anyway, it becomes more work to target a dual-distribution platform. Microsoft has already stated that alternative web browsers won't be allowed on ARM, so there is little chance that they will allow an alternative distribution channel, and even if they did, they would want some percentage (30%?) of Valve's income so it's not going to happen.
Aside from ARM issues, Steam has 70%+ of the market for distribution of Windows video games. Once Microsoft have an alternative app Store it is going to be competing directly against Steam. The amusing thing is that all this fuss is over a unified distribution channel, which is a new feature for Windows but which the Linux distributions have had for almost two decades now.
From what I've been told, the military isn't usually that fun for geeks, I have a few friends who tried it... One told me he "didn't want to be stuck behind a desk" with his computing degree and joined the army. It wasn't all roses and he left after 2 years. He did enjoy some of the physical aspects of it, like the 24 hour non-stop endurance mountain hiking tasks etc. but he didn't enjoy the less pleasant physical activities, like walking wet through marshland in the driving rain for days on end. Exercise in the army isn't like exercise for everyone else - you don't get to choose to go on a nice hike in a scenic land - you are told where to go and what to do, and you have to do it regardless of weather or crappy terrain, and you have to carry a huge heavy pack. The other problem he had was the lack of intellectual stimulation from the other soldiers - he was infantry, not some tech hacker group, and so the men he worked with were were usually poorly educated and not interested in intellectual chat, or reading books etc. Most of them have very few qualifications, quite a few have criminal records etc. - it's a very different social environment to a software company like Google or Apple where most people will be aspiring middle class and where academic degrees and the pursuit of knowledge is respected.
Another friend left the navy after 8 months. He thought it was fun at first, but quickly got sick of cold showers and getting up at 5am every morning.
Two friends did enjoy being in the military, they were both aerospace engineers in the airforce. Their work environment was completely different - quite well paid, they aren't expected to do extreme physical exercise, and they and their co-workers had to be highly qualified and knowledgeable because that was the nature of the job. If you are an aerospace engineer, being flown around the world to work on fighter jets is an interesting job.
This table suggests that, at your speed and weight and 1 hour journey, you will use somewhere in the region of 750 calories depending on your exertion level (your speed would match vigorous, but I suspect that with a mtb and knobbly tyres you are exerting more than a similar commuter who is more likely to be on a hybrid with skinny tyres). This calculator also suggests around 750.
I'd be surprised if it was more than 500kcal total.
People often underestimate the effects of just one hour of exercise - an hour of running, for many people, will exceed 1000 calories. If you do that every day it makes a huge difference.
Most likely lack of exercise to compensate for sitting most of the day contributed to the health risks.
The research has shown that sitting is bad for you regardless of other factors like weight, or whether or not you exercise regularly.
Why Prolonged Sitting Is Bad for Your Health: "adults who sat for 11 hours or more a day had a 40% increased risk of dying in the next three years than those who sat for less than four hours a day. Even after taking into account physical activity, weight and health status, researchers found that the unsettling association held."
Scientists' latest depressing find: sitting down is really bad for your health: "sitting for more than three hours per day cuts about two years off your life expectancy. They added that watching more than two hours of TV per day will cut your life expectancy down another year or so. An even bleaker discovery? Moderate exercise doesn't seem to offset the effects of this excessive sitting either."
Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?
It is hard not to infringe if you are writing a single search interface. Here's the patent. Apple is claiming to have invented executing searches on multiple sites from a single interface, of ranking and presenting the results in some order, and of being able to guesstimate what file type the user is trying to search for:
The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information....
...web-browser applications are not designed to search for non-web-based documents or applications located on the computer or an associated computer network and, conversely, File Find-type utility programs are not capable of searching the Internet for web-based documents or applications. There has been no combination of desktop find routines that presents a single interface and Internet browsing routines to allow a computer user to find a needed or desired item of information from among all different types of information storage systems. Additionally, there is no program which is able to process the user's input and then determine, using many different factors, including use of the Internet, the intent of the user as to the file to be retrieved. Accordingly, in order to present a more informative and personalized user interface, a unitary manner of finding a user's desired item of information is needed.
I have bolded the things that Apple claims did not exist before this invention.
Yes, sorry, it appears your original figure was right, the article I had read didn't make it clear, this article is more informative. Still, missing the analysts prediction is rare for Apple.
This prediction wasn't one from "financial analysts" - this was Apple's own sales forecast.
This was wrong. Apple Q3 2012 by the Numbers: $35B revenue, $9.32 EPS: Apple predicted revenue of $34 billion and made $35 billion. The reason this is news is that they undershot the analysts average by about $2 billion, and because they have revised down sales forecast for the next quarter to $34 billion again (ie. flat, no xmas jump). Analysts were expecting continuous growth from Apple, 10 months ago some analysts were predicting Apple revenue growth to $164 billion in 2013, so if growth stalls it will suggest that the share price was being massively overvalued.
I've heard these stories for years now. "Apple misses targets of financial analysts" except that the the last three words are often left out.
No you haven't. This prediction wasn't one from "financial analysts" - this was Apple's own sales forecast. This is only the second time since 2003 that Apple has missed. "Shares in Apple came under pressure after the tech giant missed its sales forecast for only the second time since 2003." Is it important? Maybe, maybe not - I suspect there are many companies that have missed some quarterly sales forecast in the last few years, it isn't exactly unusual, but it might indicate that Wall Street has overvalued Apple stock. But that also is not really surprising, the analysts have been predicting that Apple can maintain its massive growth for the foreseeable future, when the reality is that as the smartphone market matures and commoditises, prices will become more competitive and profit margins will fall.
how exactly do they delay all of these in all countries ?
You are right, Apple don't appear to be trying to delay every single Android device from every single manufacturer. But then again, they don't have to. If you check out the "Android fragmentation" graphic you will notice that the vast majority of devices are sold by only a few manufacturers - Samsung being the largest, with HTC, Sony and Motorola trailing. Apple has sued Samsung, HTC and Motorola - the curiosity is Sony, who haven't been sued yet. Why not is speculative: Why hasn't Sony been sued by Apple yet? But Samsung is clearly the biggest target, their Galaxy S line of phones is extremely popular and has outsold the iPhone almost every month in some of the largest Western markets (check the graphic at the bottom of this page that covers UK sales).
Indisputably, then, prior to April 2011; Apple had a legal right to use the patents in question
No, they didn't have a legal *right*, they just had a contract that stated "we won't sue you as long as you don't sue us". Legally speaking, these are two very different things. The former means they have a patent license and are not infringing. The latter means they don't have a patent license, are infringing, but aren't going to be sued as long as the truce holds (which it didn't).
That won't stop piracy - even with DRM, it only takes one person to release a cracked version of the app and it's available to everyone. The whole argument basically boils down to "wah, if users can load their own apps then they might load a pirated copy of my app". Which is true. But what this guy is actually forgetting is that, if his argument were correct, then Apple would make no profit from iTunes - it is possible to load pirated copies of mp3 files onto the iPod, and hence, by his logic the iPod must have been "designed for piracy", and Apple is "laboring under a broken business model". Which is obviously rubbish.
Samsung tried to double dip on Standards Essential Patents.
Samsung disagree - they say that Qualcomm never even had a patent license - what they did have was a mutual "no-sue" contract which covered their customers, and that was terminated once their customer (Apple) sued Samsung. Given that Apple subsequently approached Samsung to licence these very patents, it would appear that Samsung's interpretation is correct, otherwise why would Apple bother?
Samsung counsel Neil Young today admitted that Qualcomm, which supplies chips to Apple, had an agreement with Samsung whereby the Korean tech giant would not sue Qualcomm or its customers for infringement on 3G patents. According to court documents, this agreement was first made back in 1993.
"There was an agreement between Samsung and Qualcomm. That agreement was not a licence agreement. It contains a contractual provision that Samsung would not sue Qualcomm or customers of Qualcomm who apply [the 3G patents]," Young said.
Samsung stated that this agreement was terminated in April 2011, with notice provided to Qualcomm, when Apple first filed proceedings against the Galaxy Tab in California.
Oh, how about the one that sodomizes young children as part of a millennia-long tribal tradition?
You mean Bacha Bazi, which was illegal under the Taliban and punished by execution? And which has flourished since the Taliban were defeated, including the U.S. company Dyncorp pimping young boys to Afghan policemen?
The Taliban are terrible, but there are enough truths to hold against them without making stuff up.
Slashdot Mirror
Richard Muller is a lot of things (a fairly good scientist for one), and the press keeps insisting he's a "former skeptic," but nobody seems to be able to find anything he's ever said that put him in the "skeptic" camp
He was skeptical about the historical temperature record (which is why he launched this project in the first place). Does that not make him a "skeptic"?
It's VERY EASY to mistake the Galaxy Tab for an iPad.
It's very easy to mistake lots of things if you ignore the differences.
Is there any evidence that anyone has *ever* bought a Galaxy Tab when they meant to buy an iPad? Any?
Except there was no Sony to design to copy. That mock up is one 100% designed by apple.
There were numerous Sony devices around at the time that were moving towards a more simplistic, button-less touchscreen design with rounded corners. This fact, along with those particular design design features, were noted in the Sony interview.
This is false on 2 counts because there were no scarped plans
The Apple designer who created the "Sony design" has testified that his design changed the course of the project, the existing design was scrapped, and his was adopted instead.
So many similarities, in fact, that Google actually demanded that Samsung alter their design.
No they didn't.
Having implemented OAuth1.0 and 2.0 services for communicating with various platforms, I was amazed at the lack of any security in Oauth 2.0. As mentioned by others, it completely relies on SSL/TLS
Hammer has been saying similar things for years now: OAuth 2.0 (without Signatures) is Bad for the Web
Apple's internal emails apparently show that they copied Sony's designs.
Found the details. Apple’s iPhone Has Sony Style, Says Samsung (Full Trial Brief). The emails show an iPhone designer being instructed to create a "Sony-like" design, the initial CAD drawings he created even had the Sony logo on. The emails then show the existing iPhone design being abandoned for the new "Sony" design, and the Apple designer has given sworn testimony that his "Sony-style" design changed the course of the project and led to the final iPhone design.
Samsung made what amounts to a copy of the iPad.
The British courts disagree: Apple must run "Samsung did not copy iPad" ads.
As the summary and article state plainly, Samsung made what amounts to a copy of the iPad.
The article and summary also point out that Apple's internal emails apparently show that they copied Sony's designs. If that is true, it will be interesting to see how Sony respond.
Also interesting to note that Samsung have produced their own before and after graphic for the court, which disproves the Apple fan claims that "all Samsung phones look like the iPhone".
A new survey, by Republican pollster Frank Luntz...
You honestly expect us to take an anecdotal opinion... seriously?
There is an important difference between a survey and an anecdotal opinion.
Around 1/2 of the US population has at least one gun in their home. The NRA indirectly represents those people as well as the others that support the right to bear arms but don't happen to have any. Ultimately that means they represent over half the population.
Who Does the NRA Represent?
A new survey, by Republican pollster Frank Luntz and commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of over 400 mayors, even more dramatically contradicts the conventional political wisdom on the gun issue. Not only does the NRA not represent the views of gun owners on major issues of gun policy; it doesn't even represent the views of its own membership. For example, the Luntz survey found that 69% of self-described NRA members agree that all gun sellers at gun shows should be required to conduct criminal background checks on prospective buyers, a reform that would close the infamous "gun show loophole". Luntz found that 82% of NRA members support "prohibiting persons on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Seventy-eight percent of NRA members support "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." All of these measures are vehemently opposed by the NRA.
Laws preventing the government from stepping on rights are not tyranical, nor are they alarming.
That would depend on the right. For example, the right to own slaves: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed"
if you actually read the article this is just some bullshit proof of concept made by a anti-virus company to shake down mac users.
Yeah, no, that's not what it says. Maybe you should read the article.
So how exactly were they wrong?
The article does not claim that this is a "bullshit proof of concept made by a anti-virus company to shake down mac users". That is how the original poster was wrong.
AFAIK, there are several issues: Windows 8 won't allow side-loading of apps on ARM computers, so Steam is going to be completely locked out of Microsoft's big ARM push, including the MS Surface tablet which might be popular. W8 also won't allow side loading of Metro apps at all (unless you are a developer or enterprise) and so if developers want to use Metro features, then they won't be able to distribute via Steam. If W8 on ARM is popular, and say 25% of sales are on that platform, then Steam is going to be a lot less useful as a distribution platform because developers are going to want to target ARM devices, and since they're forced to build and distribute via the Windows Store anyway, it becomes more work to target a dual-distribution platform. Microsoft has already stated that alternative web browsers won't be allowed on ARM, so there is little chance that they will allow an alternative distribution channel, and even if they did, they would want some percentage (30%?) of Valve's income so it's not going to happen.
Aside from ARM issues, Steam has 70%+ of the market for distribution of Windows video games. Once Microsoft have an alternative app Store it is going to be competing directly against Steam. The amusing thing is that all this fuss is over a unified distribution channel, which is a new feature for Windows but which the Linux distributions have had for almost two decades now.
From what I've been told, the military isn't usually that fun for geeks, I have a few friends who tried it... One told me he "didn't want to be stuck behind a desk" with his computing degree and joined the army. It wasn't all roses and he left after 2 years. He did enjoy some of the physical aspects of it, like the 24 hour non-stop endurance mountain hiking tasks etc. but he didn't enjoy the less pleasant physical activities, like walking wet through marshland in the driving rain for days on end. Exercise in the army isn't like exercise for everyone else - you don't get to choose to go on a nice hike in a scenic land - you are told where to go and what to do, and you have to do it regardless of weather or crappy terrain, and you have to carry a huge heavy pack. The other problem he had was the lack of intellectual stimulation from the other soldiers - he was infantry, not some tech hacker group, and so the men he worked with were were usually poorly educated and not interested in intellectual chat, or reading books etc. Most of them have very few qualifications, quite a few have criminal records etc. - it's a very different social environment to a software company like Google or Apple where most people will be aspiring middle class and where academic degrees and the pursuit of knowledge is respected.
Another friend left the navy after 8 months. He thought it was fun at first, but quickly got sick of cold showers and getting up at 5am every morning.
Two friends did enjoy being in the military, they were both aerospace engineers in the airforce. Their work environment was completely different - quite well paid, they aren't expected to do extreme physical exercise, and they and their co-workers had to be highly qualified and knowledgeable because that was the nature of the job. If you are an aerospace engineer, being flown around the world to work on fighter jets is an interesting job.
I'd be surprised if it was more than 500kcal total.
People often underestimate the effects of just one hour of exercise - an hour of running, for many people, will exceed 1000 calories. If you do that every day it makes a huge difference.
Most likely lack of exercise to compensate for sitting most of the day contributed to the health risks.
The research has shown that sitting is bad for you regardless of other factors like weight, or whether or not you exercise regularly.
Why Prolonged Sitting Is Bad for Your Health: "adults who sat for 11 hours or more a day had a 40% increased risk of dying in the next three years than those who sat for less than four hours a day. Even after taking into account physical activity, weight and health status, researchers found that the unsettling association held."
Scientists' latest depressing find: sitting down is really bad for your health: "sitting for more than three hours per day cuts about two years off your life expectancy. They added that watching more than two hours of TV per day will cut your life expectancy down another year or so. An even bleaker discovery? Moderate exercise doesn't seem to offset the effects of this excessive sitting either."
Is that not an admission of guilt of infringement?
It is hard not to infringe if you are writing a single search interface. Here's the patent. Apple is claiming to have invented executing searches on multiple sites from a single interface, of ranking and presenting the results in some order, and of being able to guesstimate what file type the user is trying to search for:
The present invention provides convenient access to items of information that are related to various descriptors input by a user, by means of a unitary interface which is capable of accessing information in a variety of locations, through a number of different techniques. Using a plurality of heuristic algorithms to operate upon information descriptors input by the user, the present invention locates and displays candidate items of information for selection and/or retrieval. Thus, the advantages of a search engine can be exploited, while listing only relevant object candidate items of information....
...web-browser applications are not designed to search for non-web-based documents or applications located on the computer or an associated computer network and, conversely, File Find-type utility programs are not capable of searching the Internet for web-based documents or applications. There has been no combination of desktop find routines that presents a single interface and Internet browsing routines to allow a computer user to find a needed or desired item of information from among all different types of information storage systems. Additionally, there is no program which is able to process the user's input and then determine, using many different factors, including use of the Internet, the intent of the user as to the file to be retrieved. Accordingly, in order to present a more informative and personalized user interface, a unitary manner of finding a user's desired item of information is needed.
I have bolded the things that Apple claims did not exist before this invention.
Yes, sorry, it appears your original figure was right, the article I had read didn't make it clear, this article is more informative. Still, missing the analysts prediction is rare for Apple.
This prediction wasn't one from "financial analysts" - this was Apple's own sales forecast.
This was wrong. Apple Q3 2012 by the Numbers: $35B revenue, $9.32 EPS: Apple predicted revenue of $34 billion and made $35 billion. The reason this is news is that they undershot the analysts average by about $2 billion, and because they have revised down sales forecast for the next quarter to $34 billion again (ie. flat, no xmas jump). Analysts were expecting continuous growth from Apple, 10 months ago some analysts were predicting Apple revenue growth to $164 billion in 2013, so if growth stalls it will suggest that the share price was being massively overvalued.
I've heard these stories for years now. "Apple misses targets of financial analysts" except that the the last three words are often left out.
No you haven't. This prediction wasn't one from "financial analysts" - this was Apple's own sales forecast. This is only the second time since 2003 that Apple has missed. "Shares in Apple came under pressure after the tech giant missed its sales forecast for only the second time since 2003." Is it important? Maybe, maybe not - I suspect there are many companies that have missed some quarterly sales forecast in the last few years, it isn't exactly unusual, but it might indicate that Wall Street has overvalued Apple stock. But that also is not really surprising, the analysts have been predicting that Apple can maintain its massive growth for the foreseeable future, when the reality is that as the smartphone market matures and commoditises, prices will become more competitive and profit margins will fall.
how exactly do they delay all of these in all countries ?
You are right, Apple don't appear to be trying to delay every single Android device from every single manufacturer. But then again, they don't have to. If you check out the "Android fragmentation" graphic you will notice that the vast majority of devices are sold by only a few manufacturers - Samsung being the largest, with HTC, Sony and Motorola trailing. Apple has sued Samsung, HTC and Motorola - the curiosity is Sony, who haven't been sued yet. Why not is speculative: Why hasn't Sony been sued by Apple yet? But Samsung is clearly the biggest target, their Galaxy S line of phones is extremely popular and has outsold the iPhone almost every month in some of the largest Western markets (check the graphic at the bottom of this page that covers UK sales).
Indisputably, then, prior to April 2011; Apple had a legal right to use the patents in question
No, they didn't have a legal *right*, they just had a contract that stated "we won't sue you as long as you don't sue us". Legally speaking, these are two very different things. The former means they have a patent license and are not infringing. The latter means they don't have a patent license, are infringing, but aren't going to be sued as long as the truce holds (which it didn't).
This is a problem that has essentially been fixed
That won't stop piracy - even with DRM, it only takes one person to release a cracked version of the app and it's available to everyone. The whole argument basically boils down to "wah, if users can load their own apps then they might load a pirated copy of my app". Which is true. But what this guy is actually forgetting is that, if his argument were correct, then Apple would make no profit from iTunes - it is possible to load pirated copies of mp3 files onto the iPod, and hence, by his logic the iPod must have been "designed for piracy", and Apple is "laboring under a broken business model". Which is obviously rubbish.
Samsung tried to double dip on Standards Essential Patents.
Samsung disagree - they say that Qualcomm never even had a patent license - what they did have was a mutual "no-sue" contract which covered their customers, and that was terminated once their customer (Apple) sued Samsung. Given that Apple subsequently approached Samsung to licence these very patents, it would appear that Samsung's interpretation is correct, otherwise why would Apple bother?
Samsung counsel Neil Young today admitted that Qualcomm, which supplies chips to Apple, had an agreement with Samsung whereby the Korean tech giant would not sue Qualcomm or its customers for infringement on 3G patents. According to court documents, this agreement was first made back in 1993.
"There was an agreement between Samsung and Qualcomm. That agreement was not a licence agreement. It contains a contractual provision that Samsung would not sue Qualcomm or customers of Qualcomm who apply [the 3G patents]," Young said.
Samsung stated that this agreement was terminated in April 2011, with notice provided to Qualcomm, when Apple first filed proceedings against the Galaxy Tab in California.
Samsung sacrificed Qualcomm truce for Apple war
Whichever one poisons school children?
You mean the poisoning where no traces of poison was found and no one got sick and died?
Oh, how about the one that sodomizes young children as part of a millennia-long tribal tradition?
You mean Bacha Bazi, which was illegal under the Taliban and punished by execution? And which has flourished since the Taliban were defeated, including the U.S. company Dyncorp pimping young boys to Afghan policemen?
The Taliban are terrible, but there are enough truths to hold against them without making stuff up.