Just be smart about it and time your visits to be just after the intake of large amounts of hot pockets. You'll be at less risk for being too near when one of the explosions erupts.
However, I can easily some relatives back in the Midwest that would claim something about God, Jesus, whatever and how that person could still live because the Jesus could find a way to heal them.
It's very much like Star Trek Science. There is something you want to accomplish, so you just fudge the details like the Heisenberg Compensator. To religious people Jesus is the bridge, or the glue, in the logistics of something seemingly impossible or improbable happening.
The amazing thing, to me, is that they don't see anything illogical about that at all. It's normal, and fundamental to their faith, even though it is quite arbitrary.
When somebody like Dell is told they just had a $250,000 sale fall through because they could not offer machines that can load XP, you will see things change in a big hurry with the manufacturers.
The small guy might not get a lot of input, but when you start buying a thousand machines at a time.... you get your own sales rep. One way or the other, Dell will acquire, force, intimidate, purchase, steal, conjure, whatever the hardware to make those big sales go through.
Microsoft does not dictate hardware. Hardware purchasers dictate hardware directly proportional to volume.
It seems that reality tv shows are the cheapest programming you can make.
"Actors" that are just amazed they are on television and if you tell them they will get paid even half as much again as their current yearly salary they start humping the programming directors leg.
Meanwhile, the big, classically trained in NYC, celebrity actors bitch about the wrong color M&Ms in their custom trailers and just when does their salary go to 1 million dollars per episode.
No big loss to me. It's not like I was that into television in the first place. I'll miss the sci-fi shows and documentaries, but that will just make want to watch the documentaries on Netflix even more.
Do you know how much money lawyers spend on fast cars, hookers, cocaine, and more hookers? Not to mention incidental industries like suits and briefcases.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I don't like software patents, patents on living things, and basically, poor patents that are granted by complete idiots.
If a patent is worthy and serves the purpose of providing for the Public Domain, I am satisfied.
The Samsung lawyer could not tell the Galaxy from an iPad at 10 paces.
Whoa. Seriously? That's the litmus test for being able to tell the difference between two products? 10 paces. That's one hell of a strict test.
But try to wrap your brain around the point of a design patent. It's not about algorithms, operating systems, gizmos or materials. IT'S SOLEY TO PREVENT CONSUMER CONFUSION as to the origin of the product.
I perfectly understand the point of a design patent. Rounded edges, thinness, flatness, etc. should be excluded from a design patent because they are not purely ornamental. That would be a regular patent, and you can't patent round edges that way because it so fucking obvious. Same for flatness, thinness, and the majority of what Apple is trying to claim they should own.
I call bullshit. Having seen both products, I am not seeing any confusion, or harm to Apple. It pisses me off to no end that Samsung cannot make their tablet flat, with round edges, thin, etc.
Now as for the icons, I would need to take a 2nd look. That sounds like complete utter shit though. Having configured several iPads, and owning an Android based device, I have a really really hard time seeing that Samsung was ripping off the UI at the same time.
Ironically, I don't think I will be able to make the comparison first hand since Verizon will probably pull the Tab out of the store before I get the chance to pick one up and look at it.
Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?
Fuck Yes.
There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.
If Apple wants legal protection, they can innovate inside the fucking casing. Better battery life, sharper and higher PPI screens, better touchscreen, faster processors, etc.
Or as part of the casing with stronger glass, lighter materials, etc.
Fuck. With your support of their bullshit the next thing we will know is that Apples owns the color white.
It doesn't matter. I understand the difference, and what you are saying, but nonetheless, it does not matter.
It is still a patent, and covered under patent law. Making the specific distinction that it is a design patent is not actually pertinent to the conversation at hand.
That poster that was trying to invalidate an argument simply because it did not make that fine distinction that you hold to be so important.
This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.
What part of that does not cover both "regular" patents and design patents? That observation equally applies to both.
I disagree with providing legal protections for most elements of design patents because in this case I see quite a number of them to be functional and not purely ornamental.
Even more amazing, with your observation about the or/and operator, is that it could really infringe on all the claims at the same time. I've seen an iPad and a Tab close up at the same time. There is no way to get them confused.
It stifles innovation because it makes it difficult for companies to release a product due to silly, stupid, and meaningless design restrictions that are so fucking obvious it's painful.
Remember, the whole point of patent law in the first place is not to provide ownership of an idea, but to provide a constant stream of valuable knowledge and ideas into the Public Domain.
Most of Apple's design patents that relate to the aesthetics of a device are just stupid. Anybody could have thought of it, it is incredibly obvious, and would you really want to do it differently?
Rounded edges. Stupid. Duh. Yes, of course we would want rounded edges.
Thin. Well yeah....
Screen being edge to edge. What? No way. I want a huge fucking border around mine.
In 500 years are people really going to be celebrating Apple for some of this shit as if it was really contributing to our wealth of knowledge?
"Ahhh... yes children. Gather around. Do you know why were on this colony now, hundreds of light years away from the home planet? It was because a company called Apple made rounded edges."
It's a patent case that is covered by patent law. Just because it is a subsection, species, flavor, or what-the-fuck-ever kind of patent does not make it wrong to refer to it as a patent case, or patent law.
Even though the laws that cover both patents and design patents... are called... wait for it.... patent law?
Or even better, since you read the article, where in the judgement itself does it make this "critical" distinction?
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed onthe merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that thebalance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the December 2, 2011 Order, this Courtfound that Apple had established that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 likely infringed upon theD’889 Patent, and that Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung’sinfringing conduct. See December 2 Order at 39-50. However, the Court denied the preliminaryinjunction because the D’889 Patent was likely invalid based on several prior art references.
Id . at40-45, 50.The Federal Circuit upheld the Court’s findings of infringement and irreparable harm withrespect to the D’889 Patent, but reversed the Court’s invalidity finding as to that patent
On December 2, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Apple’s motion for a preliminaryinjunction. Apple sought an injunction based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’sDesign Patent Nos. D618,677 (“the D’677 Patent”), D593,087 (“the D’087 Patent”), D504,889(“the D’889 Patent”), and based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s U.S. Patent No.7,469,381 (“the ’381 Patent”).
Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.
This is just more evidence of how the system is broken. I can see the difference between an iPad and Tab. It's fucking ridiculous to own "rounded edges" and bullshit like that.
It's so completely obvious that you would want a tablet shaped like that, and to be thin.
You asked for an example of where a company was not "lazily" duplicating designs. Well, I would argue that is not duplicating something tremendously fucking obvious.
That's like somebody being able to say with a straight face that is non obvious to make paper, that you want to write, on, "like all flat and shit".
Yes, your honor. We feel we should be protected and be the only ones to have flat paper. Thank you.
You can get Internet without having a cable subscription. Cable subscription usually means TV programming, not Internet.
DSL can get you broadband and has nothing to do with cable either. Satellite (I know, yuck) can get you broadband, as well as some wireless 4G providers.
You don't have to settle for bundling, or be forced to buy their programming. I have been paying for Internet only for almost a decade now.
Lenders should ALWAYS be able to produce the note on demand. It's not an unreasonable, or insurmountable request. If they can't produce it, throw their asses out of court, dismiss with prejudice, and award attorneys fees and damages.
You make it sound like it is an undue burden upon the lender or something. It's just the bare minimum of what should be required to come to court in the first place.
It's their own damn fault in the first place. Would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for something with no way to prove you own it? If so, would you then have this unreasonable sense of entitlement that you don't need to prove jack squat and the courts just have to go along with your reality distortion field? I didn't think so.
Also remember that I am talking about taking all of the handling of the notes away from the lenders and putting it back with the local courts. If an officer of the court is party to each physical transaction, and it is physically held in the court houses, no undue burden is placed upon the lender at all.
The same reason you want physical transactions for stocks is the same reason I want it for large loans against property. It slows things down, creates accountability, and makes it very hard to fake and screw the system up.
CDNs help somewhat with the streaming bandwidth. Netflix is creating their own CDN networks. ISPs don't really care about the bandwidth so much if it does not leave their networks.
As for the bandwidth itself, a 720p stream might be around half a gig for a 30 minute show, and 1 gig for a 60 minute show. It will be dependent on quality though. Generally, I would not expect a 720p stream to exceed 2 gigs for 60 minutes, even at very high quality.
For 1080p you can pretty much quadruple those figures.
Streaming has no effect on Internet responsiveness for me. I do a lot of VOIP and other low latency traffic at the same time and have not noticed an issue. If you have the bandwidth for it, you probably would not notice it either.
DVR's will suffer from one major, huge, astronomically sized drawback. Requires Cable Subscription . I would shoot myself before paying those bastards again, but if you have a cable subscription, not much point in streaming is there?
Slashdot Mirror
Just be smart about it and time your visits to be just after the intake of large amounts of hot pockets. You'll be at less risk for being too near when one of the explosions erupts.
I would.
However, I can easily some relatives back in the Midwest that would claim something about God, Jesus, whatever and how that person could still live because the Jesus could find a way to heal them.
It's very much like Star Trek Science. There is something you want to accomplish, so you just fudge the details like the Heisenberg Compensator. To religious people Jesus is the bridge, or the glue, in the logistics of something seemingly impossible or improbable happening.
The amazing thing, to me, is that they don't see anything illogical about that at all. It's normal, and fundamental to their faith, even though it is quite arbitrary.
I suspect that he has tried and it has only resulted in several restraining orders.
If there is one thing that religious people have taught me in this life, it's that there is no such thing as "undeniably" dead.
They can deny, deny, deny, and then deny some more.
More likely this will lead to more vegetable gardens being carefully maintained. That's their decision really and I hope I am never faced with it.
You forgot about that huge contraption that he had to pull out of his face....
That's going to be real damn difficult.
Enterprise still has to buy the damn machines.
When somebody like Dell is told they just had a $250,000 sale fall through because they could not offer machines that can load XP, you will see things change in a big hurry with the manufacturers.
The small guy might not get a lot of input, but when you start buying a thousand machines at a time.... you get your own sales rep. One way or the other, Dell will acquire, force, intimidate, purchase, steal, conjure, whatever the hardware to make those big sales go through.
Microsoft does not dictate hardware. Hardware purchasers dictate hardware directly proportional to volume.
Hell, I've only recently got IE8, and that was an improvement.
That's not an improvement.
I would only go so far as to say IE9 is an improvement.
At least you have an interval, which implies more than one instance per lifetime.
That makes you ahead of the curve here I think......
It seems that reality tv shows are the cheapest programming you can make.
"Actors" that are just amazed they are on television and if you tell them they will get paid even half as much again as their current yearly salary they start humping the programming directors leg.
Meanwhile, the big, classically trained in NYC, celebrity actors bitch about the wrong color M&Ms in their custom trailers and just when does their salary go to 1 million dollars per episode.
No big loss to me. It's not like I was that into television in the first place. I'll miss the sci-fi shows and documentaries, but that will just make want to watch the documentaries on Netflix even more.
Thank You, sir.
You stay classy Eldavojohn...
Not entirely sure what you mean....
I'm against selling the same note to two different companies, that after the transaction, both believe they own 100% of the note.
That's really just common sense. Only way a situation happens like that is with gross negligence or outright fraud.
Clearly not.
Do you know how much money lawyers spend on fast cars, hookers, cocaine, and more hookers? Not to mention incidental industries like suits and briefcases.
Uhhh, Woman is in that list?
I thought they win all the time, even when they lose?
I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I don't like software patents, patents on living things, and basically, poor patents that are granted by complete idiots.
If a patent is worthy and serves the purpose of providing for the Public Domain, I am satisfied.
The Samsung lawyer could not tell the Galaxy from an iPad at 10 paces.
Whoa. Seriously? That's the litmus test for being able to tell the difference between two products? 10 paces. That's one hell of a strict test.
But try to wrap your brain around the point of a design patent. It's not about algorithms, operating systems, gizmos or materials. IT'S SOLEY TO PREVENT CONSUMER CONFUSION as to the origin of the product.
I perfectly understand the point of a design patent. Rounded edges, thinness, flatness, etc. should be excluded from a design patent because they are not purely ornamental. That would be a regular patent, and you can't patent round edges that way because it so fucking obvious. Same for flatness, thinness, and the majority of what Apple is trying to claim they should own.
I call bullshit. Having seen both products, I am not seeing any confusion, or harm to Apple. It pisses me off to no end that Samsung cannot make their tablet flat, with round edges, thin, etc.
Now as for the icons, I would need to take a 2nd look. That sounds like complete utter shit though. Having configured several iPads, and owning an Android based device, I have a really really hard time seeing that Samsung was ripping off the UI at the same time.
Ironically, I don't think I will be able to make the comparison first hand since Verizon will probably pull the Tab out of the store before I get the chance to pick one up and look at it.
Is that really the argument you want to make? Is this the rally call that'll get all the IP haters out there lighting torches and sharpening their pitchforks?
Fuck Yes.
There is not anything about rounded edges, thin tablets, flat displays, edge to edge display screens, etc. that are purely ornamental and deserving of protection under IP law. It's incredibly obvious, functional, and fundamental to the very idea of a tablet.
If Apple wants legal protection, they can innovate inside the fucking casing. Better battery life, sharper and higher PPI screens, better touchscreen, faster processors, etc.
Or as part of the casing with stronger glass, lighter materials, etc.
Fuck. With your support of their bullshit the next thing we will know is that Apples owns the color white.
It doesn't matter. I understand the difference, and what you are saying, but nonetheless, it does not matter.
It is still a patent, and covered under patent law. Making the specific distinction that it is a design patent is not actually pertinent to the conversation at hand.
That poster that was trying to invalidate an argument simply because it did not make that fine distinction that you hold to be so important.
This is why IP related injunctions are such bullshit in the modern economy. Patents long ago stopped protecting the small inventor and are now just used to enforce a new version of the medieval guild system. It is not possible to invent any worthwhile product or service anymore without stepping on multiple patents, many of which are legally dubious.
What part of that does not cover both "regular" patents and design patents? That observation equally applies to both.
I disagree with providing legal protections for most elements of design patents because in this case I see quite a number of them to be functional and not purely ornamental.
Even more amazing, with your observation about the or/and operator, is that it could really infringe on all the claims at the same time. I've seen an iPad and a Tab close up at the same time. There is no way to get them confused.
It stifles innovation because it makes it difficult for companies to release a product due to silly, stupid, and meaningless design restrictions that are so fucking obvious it's painful.
Remember, the whole point of patent law in the first place is not to provide ownership of an idea, but to provide a constant stream of valuable knowledge and ideas into the Public Domain.
Most of Apple's design patents that relate to the aesthetics of a device are just stupid. Anybody could have thought of it, it is incredibly obvious, and would you really want to do it differently?
Rounded edges. Stupid. Duh. Yes, of course we would want rounded edges.
Thin. Well yeah....
Screen being edge to edge. What? No way. I want a huge fucking border around mine.
In 500 years are people really going to be celebrating Apple for some of this shit as if it was really contributing to our wealth of knowledge?
"Ahhh... yes children. Gather around. Do you know why were on this colony now, hundreds of light years away from the home planet? It was because a company called Apple made rounded edges."
You're being pedantic.
It's a patent case that is covered by patent law. Just because it is a subsection, species, flavor, or what-the-fuck-ever kind of patent does not make it wrong to refer to it as a patent case, or patent law.
Really? You're going to try to be that pedantic?
Even though the laws that cover both patents and design patents... are called... wait for it.... patent law?
Or even better, since you read the article, where in the judgement itself does it make this "critical" distinction?
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed onthe merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that thebalance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council
, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the December 2, 2011 Order, this Courtfound that Apple had established that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 likely infringed upon theD’889 Patent, and that Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung’sinfringing conduct.
See
December 2 Order at 39-50. However, the Court denied the preliminaryinjunction because the D’889 Patent was likely invalid based on several prior art references.
Id
. at40-45, 50.The Federal Circuit upheld the Court’s findings of infringement and irreparable harm withrespect to the D’889 Patent, but reversed the Court’s invalidity finding as to that patent
They seem to keep referring to it as a patent....
Not a patent case?
On December 2, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Apple’s motion for a preliminaryinjunction. Apple sought an injunction based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’sDesign Patent Nos. D618,677 (“the D’677 Patent”), D593,087 (“the D’087 Patent”), D504,889(“the D’889 Patent”), and based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s U.S. Patent No.7,469,381 (“the ’381 Patent”).
Certainly sounds like a patent case to me.
This is just more evidence of how the system is broken. I can see the difference between an iPad and Tab. It's fucking ridiculous to own "rounded edges" and bullshit like that.
It's so completely obvious that you would want a tablet shaped like that, and to be thin.
You asked for an example of where a company was not "lazily" duplicating designs. Well, I would argue that is not duplicating something tremendously fucking obvious.
That's like somebody being able to say with a straight face that is non obvious to make paper, that you want to write, on, "like all flat and shit".
Yes, your honor. We feel we should be protected and be the only ones to have flat paper. Thank you.
You can get Internet without having a cable subscription. Cable subscription usually means TV programming, not Internet.
DSL can get you broadband and has nothing to do with cable either. Satellite (I know, yuck) can get you broadband, as well as some wireless 4G providers.
You don't have to settle for bundling, or be forced to buy their programming. I have been paying for Internet only for almost a decade now.
The difference?
Lenders should ALWAYS be able to produce the note on demand. It's not an unreasonable, or insurmountable request. If they can't produce it, throw their asses out of court, dismiss with prejudice, and award attorneys fees and damages.
You make it sound like it is an undue burden upon the lender or something. It's just the bare minimum of what should be required to come to court in the first place.
It's their own damn fault in the first place. Would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for something with no way to prove you own it? If so, would you then have this unreasonable sense of entitlement that you don't need to prove jack squat and the courts just have to go along with your reality distortion field? I didn't think so.
Also remember that I am talking about taking all of the handling of the notes away from the lenders and putting it back with the local courts. If an officer of the court is party to each physical transaction, and it is physically held in the court houses, no undue burden is placed upon the lender at all.
The same reason you want physical transactions for stocks is the same reason I want it for large loans against property. It slows things down, creates accountability, and makes it very hard to fake and screw the system up.
Especially descriptive voice for the blind.
Imagine sports casters, Elmer Fudd, or those really fast Spanish speaking guys narrating your favorite hardcore.
CDNs help somewhat with the streaming bandwidth. Netflix is creating their own CDN networks. ISPs don't really care about the bandwidth so much if it does not leave their networks.
As for the bandwidth itself, a 720p stream might be around half a gig for a 30 minute show, and 1 gig for a 60 minute show. It will be dependent on quality though. Generally, I would not expect a 720p stream to exceed 2 gigs for 60 minutes, even at very high quality.
For 1080p you can pretty much quadruple those figures.
Streaming has no effect on Internet responsiveness for me. I do a lot of VOIP and other low latency traffic at the same time and have not noticed an issue. If you have the bandwidth for it, you probably would not notice it either.
DVR's will suffer from one major, huge, astronomically sized drawback. Requires Cable Subscription . I would shoot myself before paying those bastards again, but if you have a cable subscription, not much point in streaming is there?
Thanks for that. I had just been using different inputs on the monitors and two keyboards.