When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you trying to argue that some other mobile phone application vendor -- or all of the rest combined, for that matter -- has racked up anywhere close to 3,000,000,000 downloads?
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones
Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.
I see a lot of parallels between Bilski and Eldred v. Ashcroft. They are both IP cases where the Court was asked to step in and do Congress's job for it. In Eldred they refused to issue any opinion whatsoever as to what would constitute an unreasonable extension of copyright terms. I see no Constitutional basis for them to hand down any other opinion in Bilski. IMHO the majority will refuse to state anything definitive on the issue, and mumble something about it being Congress's prerogative to interpret the "progress of science and the useful arts" clause in any way they see fit.
At that point lobbyists will descend on Congress with checkbooks in hand, and we'll all end up worse off than we were before the case was ever brought.
A corporation does not have the power to forbid you to express yourself.
I used to agree with you until Wal-Mart took over a large chunk of media distribution in the US and started dictating content guidelines to publishers.
Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government.
I humorously wonder if H264 will suddenly announce being 100% royalty free for lifetime now, or will fade into obscurity.
More likely, MPEG-LA will comb through the VP8 source and find a dozen patent violations before lunch.
It's not really possible to write a video codec without infringing on various bullshit patents, which is why few people dare to open-source a commercially successful one.
Reply from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission:
Crikey! Thank you for bringing this egregious behavior to our attention. Effective April 30, 2010, the Sony Playstation 3 is hereby banned for import, sale, and possession in the states and territories of Australia and surrounding lesser islands.
The simple fact is, the LCDs that Apple is using on the iPad and iPhone are of very good optical quality. Backlighting is LED-based and completely free of flicker and unevenness, with a wide-range brightness control that's easily accessible at all times (in the iPad app's case). Considering that I've been able to read from my iPhone display for a couple of hours at a time with no eyestrain or other discomfort, there's no reason to believe that I'll experience any discomfort when reading from the iPad. It's going to be a non-issue for most users.
e-ink's only advantage, as far as I can tell, is that you can read it more comfortably in direct sunlight. It's at a disadvantage in a more typical dimly-lit room. How often does anyone read in the sun?
I don't envy the Kindle guys at Amazon. The only way their product can remain viable, IMHO, is if they drop the price to a point at which they won't be able to do anything interesting or innovative with it.
Re:He didn't address suitability of it as a ereade
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I have never found back-lit LCD's to be good for reading.
I really don't get all of this "LCD screens are going to make your eyes cry out in pain while E-ink is just about the same as paper" stuff floating around.
Pretty sure there are a lot of shills from Amazon and other e-ink clients around here. They came out of the woodwork almost the minute the iPad was announced.
Except right now, of course, while you're sitting around reading Slashdot and other sites on an LCD. Reading on an LCD feels OK at the moment, for some reason. Right?
Or are you taking one for the team, suffering indescribable eye agony for as long as it takes to bring us the good news about e-ink and the Kindle?
You e-ink boosters remind me of the Chewlies Gum salesman in Clerks.
Yeah, because all of the leading-edge phone designers have been busting their humps for two years now, desperately trying to clone some random produc by Nokia or an "oriental" design, and not the iPhone. Sure.
Oh, and "oriental" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Asian person from densely-populated country with weird telecom standards," please.
1. breaking intercompatability: iTunes. Works with other media players in the way that Internet Explorer works on other operating systems. Ever tried syncing iPhone with anything other than iTunes? Ever tried putting MacOSX on anything other than Apple hardware?
If installing iTunes ever causes WinAmp to bluescreen, you might have legitimate grounds to compare Apple to Microsoft. "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run," after all.
(Yes, the Lotus thing is apocryphal and disputed by people who were there. This isn't, though.
Sure they're stealing. They are taking something that is not theirs without paying for it. That's stealing, plain and simple. You may not like to look at it that way because they don't "take" anything that is a "physical" item, but it's stealing nonetheless. You are the one lying as an attempt to create justification for stealing.
If downloading is "stealing," then jaywalking is "rape of traffic."
Words -- especially legal terms -- have meaning. You don't get to make up new meanings to suit your own purposes.
If anyone thinks they can write a better algorithm, we are hiring.
Post everything, under the assumption that your users aren't total idiots who need to be protected from themselves.
Security by (algorithmic) obscurity only rewards the ones who guess how the algorithm works. It's a lot easier to game Yelp than to game Google, because the problem domain is so much narrower.
If chaos has to be part of "working", then the model is flawed.
If chaos is an avoidable flaw, then by all means, go ahead and tell us how to avoid it. There's at least one Nobel in it for you, and probably a Fields Medal or three.
All you have to do is have your pupil size checked. With modern lasers and surgical practice, you will not have problems with glare or starbursts unless you have larger-than-normal pupils.
Failing that, PRK is still an option, too. The only reasons not to have refractive surgery at this point in time are if you're (a) a total wuss, or (b) unable to afford it.
Or maybe, just maybe, when you bomb the living bejesus out of the rest of the world's production capacity, the one major power left untouched will "grow fantastically." We could try that again, like we did in the good old days (41-45).
Slashdot Mirror
When was the last time Microsoft's market share was less than 25%?
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you trying to argue that some other mobile phone application vendor -- or all of the rest combined, for that matter -- has racked up anywhere close to 3,000,000,000 downloads?
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on integrated software downloads and purchases for smartphones
Actually, I'll bet Apple's market share in smartphone applications is already larger than Microsoft's market share in PC operating systems at the time they first came under scrutiny by the DOJ.
D'oh, not sure how that clipboarded link got confused with an earlier one. Should have been Eldred v. Ashcroft, for the Wikipedia-challenged.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
Sigh, and now they won't let me fix it. Morons with a copy of PHP For Dummies...
I see a lot of parallels between Bilski and Eldred v. Ashcroft. They are both IP cases where the Court was asked to step in and do Congress's job for it. In Eldred they refused to issue any opinion whatsoever as to what would constitute an unreasonable extension of copyright terms. I see no Constitutional basis for them to hand down any other opinion in Bilski. IMHO the majority will refuse to state anything definitive on the issue, and mumble something about it being Congress's prerogative to interpret the "progress of science and the useful arts" clause in any way they see fit.
At that point lobbyists will descend on Congress with checkbooks in hand, and we'll all end up worse off than we were before the case was ever brought.
(Note: You will not be able to name a single item)
You're right about that; there are more instances than I have time to cite.
A corporation does not have the power to forbid you to express yourself.
I used to agree with you until Wal-Mart took over a large chunk of media distribution in the US and started dictating content guidelines to publishers.
Any sufficiently-dominant corporation is indistinguishable from a government.
How exactly do e-cigs reduce lung function, again...?
I humorously wonder if H264 will suddenly announce being 100% royalty free for lifetime now, or will fade into obscurity.
More likely, MPEG-LA will comb through the VP8 source and find a dozen patent violations before lunch.
It's not really possible to write a video codec without infringing on various bullshit patents, which is why few people dare to open-source a commercially successful one.
Google's taking a billion-dollar chance here.
Reply from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission:
This is why you can't have nice things.
The simple fact is, the LCDs that Apple is using on the iPad and iPhone are of very good optical quality. Backlighting is LED-based and completely free of flicker and unevenness, with a wide-range brightness control that's easily accessible at all times (in the iPad app's case). Considering that I've been able to read from my iPhone display for a couple of hours at a time with no eyestrain or other discomfort, there's no reason to believe that I'll experience any discomfort when reading from the iPad. It's going to be a non-issue for most users.
e-ink's only advantage, as far as I can tell, is that you can read it more comfortably in direct sunlight. It's at a disadvantage in a more typical dimly-lit room. How often does anyone read in the sun?
I don't envy the Kindle guys at Amazon. The only way their product can remain viable, IMHO, is if they drop the price to a point at which they won't be able to do anything interesting or innovative with it.
I have never found back-lit LCD's to be good for reading.
Except for the one you're using now, right?
I really don't get all of this "LCD screens are going to make your eyes cry out in pain while E-ink is just about the same as paper" stuff floating around.
Pretty sure there are a lot of shills from Amazon and other e-ink clients around here. They came out of the woodwork almost the minute the iPad was announced.
Displays will make your eyes hurt
Except right now, of course, while you're sitting around reading Slashdot and other sites on an LCD. Reading on an LCD feels OK at the moment, for some reason. Right?
Or are you taking one for the team, suffering indescribable eye agony for as long as it takes to bring us the good news about e-ink and the Kindle?
You e-ink boosters remind me of the Chewlies Gum salesman in Clerks.
Yeah, because all of the leading-edge phone designers have been busting their humps for two years now, desperately trying to clone some random produc by Nokia or an "oriental" design, and not the iPhone. Sure.
Oh, and "oriental" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Asian person from densely-populated country with weird telecom standards," please.
1. breaking intercompatability: iTunes. Works with other media players in the way that Internet Explorer works on other operating systems. Ever tried syncing iPhone with anything other than iTunes? Ever tried putting MacOSX on anything other than Apple hardware?
If installing iTunes ever causes WinAmp to bluescreen, you might have legitimate grounds to compare Apple to Microsoft. "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus won't run," after all.
(Yes, the Lotus thing is apocryphal and disputed by people who were there. This isn't, though.
Right, just like any bog standard cheap netbook or tablet or indeed phone will do.
This is why you fail.
Why is she going to spend vastly more on an Apple product?
Because old people have a lot of money, and not much time.
Sure they're stealing. They are taking something that is not theirs without paying for it. That's stealing, plain and simple. You may not like to look at it that way because they don't "take" anything that is a "physical" item, but it's stealing nonetheless. You are the one lying as an attempt to create justification for stealing.
If downloading is "stealing," then jaywalking is "rape of traffic."
Words -- especially legal terms -- have meaning. You don't get to make up new meanings to suit your own purposes.
On the other hand, if someone ever does discover the God particle, I hope they ask it what the true physics religion is.
You will know It, because It works.
Does this help?
I wasn't the one who made this decision
The problem is, neither was I (as a user).
If anyone thinks they can write a better algorithm, we are hiring.
Post everything, under the assumption that your users aren't total idiots who need to be protected from themselves.
Security by (algorithmic) obscurity only rewards the ones who guess how the algorithm works. It's a lot easier to game Yelp than to game Google, because the problem domain is so much narrower.
The entire purpose of the review filter is to make untrusted reviews hold less weight
So why do you remove some legitimate negative reviews entirely?
Move them to the bottom of the list, if you must, but don't delete legitimate content, EVER.
If chaos has to be part of "working", then the model is flawed.
If chaos is an avoidable flaw, then by all means, go ahead and tell us how to avoid it. There's at least one Nobel in it for you, and probably a Fields Medal or three.
All you have to do is have your pupil size checked. With modern lasers and surgical practice, you will not have problems with glare or starbursts unless you have larger-than-normal pupils.
Failing that, PRK is still an option, too. The only reasons not to have refractive surgery at this point in time are if you're (a) a total wuss, or (b) unable to afford it.
Because some people have too much income, much more than they need.
About 90% of the people on the planet would place you in that category, Mr. "Trust-Fund Communist With His Own 3000-MHz Computer."
Let's tax them like we used to in good old days (45-60s) when the tax rate for the extreme rich was around 90% and the US economy grew fantastically:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Yeah, because correlation implies causation.
Or maybe, just maybe, when you bomb the living bejesus out of the rest of the world's production capacity, the one major power left untouched will "grow fantastically." We could try that again, like we did in the good old days (41-45).
By making it economically impractical for publishers to develop the games in the first place.