Note that you can get a netbook with a touchscreen for about $400 or so, and that has full internet capability, a full keyboard, the same size screen, etc, so it doesn't really win at anything except having a locked down proprietary app store. Oh and it wins at being from Apple, and I guess that's what makes it magic.
I also don't think it looks all that hot, but others do, and it certainly looks better than a touchscreen netbook swiveled into tablet mode at least.
Still, netbook + touchscreen = netbook functionality with a cool extra. iPad = the cool extra minus all the other functionality. If you really want to spend $600 on a tablet, the iPad is very much not the best option out there, and the more they reveal about it the more that seems to be the case.
Still, for those who want to spend way too much money on what is essentially a glorified iPod Touch, more power to ya! I'm sure hipsters will gloat for a long time, until their nerdy friends show up with devices that are better in every way, except perhaps a little bit of style. (note that that also tends to crush the superiority feeling, even if they pretend to still have it)
The problem with the Apple Store (or rather, it's Magic) is that because every app has been tried and vetted by Apple people are more willing to try things out.
Ahhh, no WONDER viruses have such a hard time spreading, it's because nobody installs random shit that hasn't been vetted by a trusted company!!
Oh, wait, it's not opposite day, never mind.
Most people could care less about the fact that Apple verifies (and often poorly) the apps in the app store. Most people are a little worried about security, but not really. On the flip side, they don't really care that the app store is not "open". What they care about is "Oooh! Shiney! I want it! How do I get it?" How easy is it to get the stuff they want? That's all that really matters. For a while, the App store ruled on phones because there was nothing like it before - getting apps onto phones was either impossible or a pain in the ass, so there weren't really all that many apps out there.
Now there is a new model for getting software onto phones (thanks to Apple), and frankly, Apple's competition is doing the same thing only better. A much lower barrier to entry means the apps on the Android market are growing far faster than the Apple's store, and MOST of the apps are either add supported or free altogether, meaning I'm not spending an extra $50 to get that cool app. That's almost impossible on the app store unless your app is nothing more than a draw to another product, otherwise you have to recoup your costs by charging a small fee. Yes, it leaves the potential for crappy apps, but a good rating system takes care of that better than Apple judging every piece that comes through, and it doesn't add anything to the cost like Apple's system does.
I was actually looking for a PDA type device recently, and almost went to the ipod touch for the purpose, but the apps were the killer. For the stuff I wanted to do the apps were either $10 each or the reviews on them were horrible.
I didn't want to go to a smartphone because I didn't want to be quite that connected, and I didn't want to pay the $30 a month premium, but I actually managed to fenagle my plan such that I saved a little money and got an HTC Hero for less than what I would have spent on an iPod Touch (I already have a Nano, I don't need it for music). So far I love it, I have been able to find most everything I want with good quality and for free. I get the equivalent of what was available for the iPhone and iPod Touch at no cost. Add to that the fact that I haven't seen an app on the market that cost more than $3, I'll be much more willing to buy certain classes of apps at that price.
I personally think that, with the exception of iPods, Apple is great at innovating but terrible at dominating the market. Even the iPhone only peaked at 4% market share (20-30% of smartphones, something like that), and that is dwindling thanks to Android, and they'll never get it back. They did the exact same thing with PC's. I'm frankly not really sure how iPods managed to dominate like they have, given Apple's history. Crappy competitors I guess.
Why not? As long as he doesn't call them fools to their faces, the hipsters will never know, and they'll never care.
And Latte's really are marked up that much, I mean seriously, it's about 2 tablespoons of moderate to high grade coffee, which will run you about $0.26 at retail prices, and probably less than that given you'll be buying in bulk. Add in two cups of milk (maybe $0.50 again), a couple shots of syrup, and bam! $6 drink. It takes all of 30 seconds for a professional Barrista to make, at $10 per hour that's $0.08. Of course you've got overhead and such, but depending on the volume you do that can be extremely low. Rough guestimate I'd say it costs between $1 and $2 to make a large double-shot latte, and those sell for $5-$6.
My rough guesstimate there puts it at anywhere from 300% to 600% markup (as long as you are doing good volume, if your coffee or location sucks it won't work no matter what), and I was probably a little high on materials cost for most places. Pretty good, I'd say.
There's even a netbook with a touchscreen and a keyboard, so the only real selling points for apple are its "sleekness" and their stranglehold on applications.
Frankly, I don't think it will do nearly as well as the iPhone and iPod Touch have because I don't think it will have the primary draw that those two products have. Here's how it breaks down:
iPhone - "It's a phone, and it does all this too?!" iPod Touch - "It's a music player, and it does all this too?!" iPad - "...that's neat, but what else does it do?"
Please note that I'm not trying to say it will be a bad device or that it won't be popular, I just don't think it is going to be the slam dunk the iPhone and iPod Touch have been. As a side note, here it is a few years later and the iPhone is already moving toward being alienated in the market they effectively created - consumer grade smart-phones. Why does Apple always do this to themselves? It's the same thing they did with PC's. They friggin invented personal computing, yet they didn't have the forsight then to dominate the market in the long term, and apparently they still don't. I think Jobbs, for all his charisma and leadership skills, is holding his company back for not seeing the longer term. Not to say anybody has done it better at Apple, they haven't, but they are choking their potential instead of maximizing it.
My prediction is we'll see a new class of cheap touchscreen devices in the next 5-10 years, and once again Apple will be relegated to just a small fraction of that market, instead of dominating it. What's worse is Apples insistence on proprietary hardware (aka not sharing the software platform with other companies) will mean it will have the only devices incompatible with all the others, further limiting their market share.
The iPhone and iPod Touch work well because touchscreens work well when held in one hand and manipulated with another (or held in both and manipulated with both).
Apple may be good at UI design, but once you start setting the iPad down because it is too big to keep holding all the time, things will start to get annoying in a hurry. Laptops are bad enough without a stand as far as neck-strain and the like are concerned when you don't have a stand, a touchscreen PC will be significantly worse, and no UI can make up for that.
This is basically going to be a pretty expensive device that will do a handful of things much better and a whole lot of things much worse. I honestly think most people who use this after a while are going to say "It's great but..." and look at either a straight up laptop, or look at netbooks like the EEE PC T91, which is a swivel style touchscreen, and costs less than the iPad will. If the touchscreen is as good as I think it will be, the major effect of the iPad will be to improve touchscreens on larger devices.
First, touchscreen technology has come a long way in recent years (largely thanks to the iPhone showing what's possible in a consumer device), so provided the screen is just large enough to fit both hands on it I could see touch typing working out fine - my little HTC Hero picks up my keypresses amazingly well, and I have fat sausage fingers. Lack of actual keys will be a bit unfamiliar, perhaps, but consumers will get over any initial difficulty with the "coolness" factor.
Second, keeping the first point in mind, touchscreen PC's have been around for years and have always been a niche device precisely because of its form factor. They just aren't that useful except in certain circumstances. For example, they are easier to use while standing, but much more awkward while sitting at a table, and quite frankly a bit absurd while resting it in your lap. They are great for hand writing notes and drawing, but no matter how well they do an on-screen keyboard typing will never be as good on a tablet as on a laptop or even a netbook, for the simple fact that the screen will be in a much more awkward position.
That's not to say it won't do well, I'd just be very surprised if an iPad style touchscreen class of devices became anywhere near as popular as the netbook has been.
Now, if they were really good they'd ship it with a stand and a built-in projector keyboard. That wouldn't fix the lap-issue, but it would do a lot to make it a more versatile device like the netbooks are, and it would have massive coolness factor.
Pu-244 does not have 244 protons, it still only has 94 protons.
The article was speaking of base atomic weight, they certainly weren't suggesting heavier isotopes did not exist. They were talking about the element itself, not its potential isotope. The element Plutonium has an atomic weight of about 188, Coppernicium has an atomic weight of about 224. Coppernicium is the heavier element. If you'll read more carefully, they are careful to refer to proton count so nit-pickers like you can understand their meaning.
It's like someone says "The Honda Acura weigh 3,000 pounds, and the Toyota Corolla is heavier at 3,500 pounds", and you come out and say "Nuh uh! My dad's got an Acura that weighs 6,000 pounds! It's got a ton and a half of lead in the trunk!" It doesn't really mean you're right, even though there are Acuras that weigh more than Corollas.
You do know that "unobtainium" was a nod to geeks and nerds everywhere right? Since it's commonly used by engineers in "what if" scenarios for what they would design if they had materials that do not exist today, right? You knew that already, right?
It's called Laches. If a person is is infringing on a patented technology unknowingly, and the patent owner knows their patent is being infringed, they must actively pursue resolution. They cannot sit and wait for someone to profit off of their invention for the purposes of suing them later and getting more money.
The defense boils down to what is essentially an implied license to use the patent. You can think of it like this: if the patent holder knowingly allows someone to use their patent, they have implicitly licensed it by their inaction.
Obviously a patent holder has a reasonable amount of time after discovering the offense to contact the infringer and negotiate a license, and there is a reasonable amount of time for the license negotiations. This varies depending on the situation, and is determined by a judge or jury.
In other words, if you know someone is using an invention you've patented, and you let them use it for 5 years without telling them they're infringing on your patent, you generally have no right to sue them for damages, or even to negotiate a license.
It follows the old concept of "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". Well, allowing someone to use your patent is exactly what a license does, so if you allow someone to use your patent without seeking payment, you've licensed it to them by action.
It's similar to what happens when someone doesn't fight trade mark infringement, the only real difference is you don't lose the rights to your patent, just the right to sue that particular individual or company.
It took a couple years to figure out that Google was the king of internet search, and Yahoo his chambermaid? Or it took a couple years to drum up something that looks like it may possibly considered infringing if you look at it "just so"?
I can't really buy the first possibility, and the patents sound generic enough to cover most anything they'd have done.
Google has been around a long, long time - three years (the period of their application prior to approval) is more than enough time to find something infringing about Google's search, and another six years to negotiate? Seriously? I call BS on the whole thing, and I hope the claim gets slapped down via laches.
They may not have come up with a product, but they certainly would have been open to licensing it to someone else. The beauty of patents is it's out in the open where everyone can see. You can't hide it, and if they did not take advantage of it they would have lost it anyway.
Any attempt to bury it would have simply failed, that's the whole purpose of the patent system, is to prevent the loss of innovations.
If they had simply patented it, they would be much more of a technology powerhouse than they are now. We'd still have GUI's, and they would not be expensive.
Besides, by now there would be no licensing fees, and wouldn't have been for the last ten years. Nothing really changes, except we might be 15-20 years farther along with GUI's if Xerox hadn't been so stupid.
Three years is far too short for a patent. 20-30 years might be a little excessive, but 3 years is just as absurd as 100. If you put that into effect, the only things that will be patented are trivial items of no great benefit to society. Everything that takes more than three or four years to develop will be locked away as a trade secret instead, which is the opposite of what we want.
In case you don't understand the consequences of that, one would no more generic drugs. They would be gone, because Big Pharma, who spent 20 years developing that new wonder drug, would never tell anybody how they made it. Currently, however, after a number of years generics are licensed and cheap drugs flood the market. It's one of the few things keeping socialized health care afloat outside of the US, because some of these drugs retail at $1000 a pill.
Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation. Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively, often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.
You didn't say what you'd do about this. Personally, I'd make patent ownership non-transferable. You could still put clauses in employment contracts stating that anything patented during their employment is immediately licensed to the company at no cost, but actual ownership and further licensing belongs to the inventor. They should certainly be able to delegate management of the patent to their company or a third party, but it should remain the individual's (or group of individuals) patent and it should never belong to a company, period. That would destroy patent trolls, as they'd never own another patent.
Patents should be granted rapidly. Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation. Either you have one or you don't.
The problem there is the sheer number of patent applications and the expense to process them. Right now it costs about $200 to file for a patent. Because of this, hundreds of thousands of patents are filed every year. To get them processed in a reasonable amount of time would take ten times the staff and much greater related expenses. You would probably have to raise the price to $3000-4000 per application, which seriously raises the barrier to entry. That may not be a bad thing, but I don't think it is what you were going for.
Patents should be reasonably easy to get. We should encourage their use, with a few sensible restriction (below).
Doesn't jive with:
Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology. This is particularly important for software, where new code should be patentable (explained below) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.
It is already too easy to get patents, and too difficult to do adequate research on whether or not a patent idea is unique, innovative, and non-obvious. Any sort of streamlining without making these things easier for the patent officers simply makes things worse.
All we really need is to be sure that patents are truly innovative first, that the information in the patent is significant enough that a subject matter expert could easily duplicate the invention, and that the patent is granted as quickly as possible while still maintaining the first and second criteria.
The real magic of patents is that, even if someone can't afford to license the patent themselves, if they have the design in their hands and the knowledge to implement it, they can then begin work on the next progression in the technology. They can then patent the innovative improvement and make their own money, and somebody else can then improve upon that design. The technology can progress as fast as possible in this way, regardless of whether the patent terms are 5 years or 50. O
OS = Operating System, actually. You want OSS or FOSS, though the F is almost always redundant.
OSS != communism, certainly, but it is a form of socialism. It's like sharing, it's voluntary so it's not just no big deal, it's friggin awesome. It's the coersive forms of socialism that can be scary and nasty.
As for this IIPA group, they are either incredibly ignorant (possible, but if so it must be by choice), or they just want to manipulate the system to their advantage - which is probably the case.
Nobody is talking about inter-software dependancies, it's OS dependancies, and Apple is rather notorious for breaking them.
I'm sure you've been a Mac user so long that you're just used to buying the occasional piece of new software with every major OSX update, and you probably just wait until you need new hardware too and get it all out of the way at once, but for 90% of computer users that's not normal.
With every major (and sometimes even minor) OSX udate, core API's are changed, and any program that relies on the behavior of a function that has changed (usually because it was actually buggy behavior and nobody realized it) is now fundamentally broken. Sometimes this can simply be patched around, but if the software made that function's behavior a core part of its structure, a complete re-write is necessary.
That's what we mean when we are talking about dependancies.
Linux keeps these functions in open libraries, thus avoiding the problem (but potentially making library management a bitch). Windows keeps these functions in system Dll's (binary libraries) that are not open, but MS will add a workaround in the library specific to the piece of software if a developer lets them know the changed function breaks their old software (the exception to this is Vista, and was a major reason large companies wouldn't make the switch). Apple, however, basically tells the developers "fuck off, you did it wrong, you fix it", even if the functionality had worked the same way for years.
Except of course, when you install that shiny new OS that Apple likes to send out every year and discover half of your programs no longer work.
But right, no dependancies to deal with there! Obviously something changed in the program itself, not the updated platform that modified the functions your application depends on to run.
God, seriously, how do guys not understand what a dependancy is? Do you think programs stop working after updates just for the hell of it? A system API is a dependancy. Not only that, some system API's are dependancies for every single program that runs on OSX. They are often referred to as core API's. If Apple changes the behavior of a function call in one of their API's, they have just broken any program that depends on that function call.
They do this with every single update. Obviously it's only ever a handful of programs at a time until a major update hits, but they break dependancies all the time, and there is no recourse. They also don't tell you this, so you can go out and spend $150 on that shiny new version of OSX, blissfully unaware that a $300 program no longer works. What are you going to do, buy the new version of that $300 program that worked perfectly fine, or return the $150 OSX and simply not update your computer any more?
Don't think Apple is being evil here, that's not what I'm saying. Usually the dependancy breaks because the actual behavior of the function was buggy, and not what was intended. So they fix the function call, but any program that relied on the buggy behavior is now broken. Microsoft does the same thing all the time, the difference is, with the exception of Vista, they'll put in a work around for any developer who discovers the updated OS breaks their software. Apple gives developers and user's a big F-U and tells them to write/buy new software that correctly uses the fixed functions. This can be a disaster for developers if they did not realize the behavior was not what was intended, and built their entire piece of software around that behavior.
Even so, though, that's not really a dependency issue - it's more of a compatibility issue. The issue isn't a missing library - it's a missing piece of hardware or a missing operating system.
I'm not sure what you think backwards compatibility is all about, but I'll make it really, really simple for you: backwards compatability = maintaining dependancies. When the dependancies change, compatibility breaks. They change an API function (core library function, whatever you want to call it) that a particular program depends on (that's the definition of what a dependancy is) and the program no longer runs on the updated OS. If it is simply a system library that has changed, the developer can work around it if they so desire by repackaging the old library with their app (assuming there are no licensing issues, which there probably are). However, if the necessary functionality is in a library they don't have access to, they're fucked. Also, when you start having to maintain multiple versions of the same libraries you get into what is referred to in the Windows world as "DLL Hell". Dll obviously comes from the Windows binary library format, you could just call it "Library Hell". It's the same situation no matter the OS when you have proprietary libraries involved.
Basically, if you want true forwards and backwards compatability the Mac forces you back into the stone ages as far as libraries and the like are concerned, you can't use any of theirs because they will at some point change and break your compatibility, so you have to make all of your own from scratch. What's the point of having an advanced platform to work on if they keep pulling it out from under you every few years?
Linux is both the best and the worst about this at the same time. It's the best because, if you really want to put in the effort, everything is backwards and forwards compatible. The platform you work on can be custom made however you like it. It's the worst because the very flexibility that allows this makes installing non-repository software a potential nightmare.
Try using an old Mac app on a new version of OSX to see what the GP is talking about.
A friend of mine recently switched from Mac to PC after having one for 6 years for this very reason, even though he loved his Mac. He hadn't been able to update the OS in years because Apple had dropped support for both his hardware and his software.
So when it came down to it, he decided it would be better to get the same power at a third the price and get DJ software that would be compatible accross multiple OS and hardware updates in the future.
Macs are great at a lot of things, but backwards compatibility isn't one of them. With the exception of Vista, which was a horrible aberration, Windows is far, far better with backwards compatibility. That means your hardware and your software both have potentially a much longer life span if you choose.
Linux is a bit of mixed bag, but has the potential of being better then both for backwards compatibility depending on what you use.
The law doesn't work that way. Misrepresentation is misrepresentation, and if interstate comerce is involved it's fraud.
Now, that doesn't mean you leave out the ass covering statement, because they might be able to show that they did not intend to mislead anybody, and it was just a mistake that was missed. That can work, because intent is 9/10 of the law, but is by no means a given, they will still have to fight for it and hard.
You've got to remember that just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it so. It's the same thing with EULA's, they talk a good game, but in fact a lot of what is in there is completely unenforceable. They can say they can change the EULA whenever they want, but that doesn't mean they can change it whenever they want and still have it apply to you.
The flip side, of course, is that if they never make the claim they'll never get away with it, so they put all the useless unenforceable crap in there anyway, just in case.
There are no actual patents involved in this case, period. There can be no judgement for or against a patent in this case, because there are no patents involved. No patent will be "clarified" accept to say that yes it does exist (or at least its application exists) or no it doesn't, and yes it does apply or no it doesn't apply. That's it. Nothing is going on with the patent itself, at all.
What is involved is a statement of patents pending which, if there were no such patents pending, is fraud.
So the possibilities are as follows: - The plantif can prove that there were not applications pending for all of the "patent pending" statements on the box, or that the pending patents did not actually apply to the game. If they do, Activision can be hit for fraud and end up paying $500 for each copy of the game they sold. - The plantif can fail to prove that there were no applications pending for some patent statements or fail to prove that the patents do not apply. In that case, the little fly goes away.
If Activision attempts to "leave it ambiguous" they will almost certainly lose. The burden is on the plantiff, but it's pretty easy to prove just about anything if the defense doesn't fight back.
You've never actually followed a supreme court case, have you?
They are actually kind of famous for fucking over congress and presidents.
The nice thing about SC justices, is that though they may be nominated by presidents and approved by congress, once they are in they are in for life. They have absolutely zero political pressure from anybody, they can do whatever they like. This sounds dangerous, but given the legal background it takes to get to that level, these people usually care more about whether a law is legit or not (they can have differing philosophies about that) than whatever a particular group actually wants.
This leads to a lot of long standing laws being simply struck down, and the whole legal structure changes. They even reverse themselves when they are wrong, just look at the history of slavery in the US. One SCOTUS said it was perfectly constitutional, another said it was not. That second judgement stands until a slavery case is heard before the SCOTUS again. And that, of course, is the balance of the SCOTUS's awesome powers. They can only strike down a law in a case that has worked its way through the court system completely before landing before them. They don't get to just pick whatever issue they feel like, except to pick among the pool of cases that have made it to their level.
"This athlete is inspired by his brother who has Down's Syndrome,"
I'm sorry, I have to stick up for that guy and everybody else who has Cerebral Palsey.
First off, it's not Down's Syndrom, or anything like Down's Syndrom. The guy is not mentally handicapped at all. It affects muscular control, not cognative ability. The reason he talks funny and acts funny is because he cannot control his muscles properly. In case you're too stupid to understand the way the body works, muscles are what control arm movements, leg movements, head and neck, vocal chords, and anything else that moves. In other words, if you can't control your muscles, you are going to act and talk funny. The guy was not supposed to be able to walk at all, and yet he does, and even skiis when he can. His story, like the few others I've known who have Cerebral Palsey, is truly inspiring.
As for the rest of your comment, I couldn't agree more. Short blurbs for circumstances truly inspiring, sure, but spending 20 minutes on it is too much. For heaven's sake they even had a long Michael Phelps interview the other day! Why? Well he's a fan of the Olympics, of course! Dumbasses. NBC's coverage sucks, they cut out half of all the best sports in prime time, yet show curling non-stop on their lesser channels. WTF?
I've got issues with the IOC too, like allowing sports like curling, hockey, and figure skating - especially fucking ice dancing - into the Olympics in the first place. What the hell is Olympic about any of those? The Olympics is all about FEATS, feats of strength, feats of speed, feats of agility. Any team sport where you aren't acting as a single unit (a la bobsledding style) or any sport requiring style points is either broken or doesn't belong at all.
They can have their own championships, and I have great respect for the skill required (I actually find curling fascinating, been watching it a lot), but they are not Olympic and shouldn't be in the games.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that you can get a netbook with a touchscreen for about $400 or so, and that has full internet capability, a full keyboard, the same size screen, etc, so it doesn't really win at anything except having a locked down proprietary app store. Oh and it wins at being from Apple, and I guess that's what makes it magic.
I also don't think it looks all that hot, but others do, and it certainly looks better than a touchscreen netbook swiveled into tablet mode at least.
Still, netbook + touchscreen = netbook functionality with a cool extra. iPad = the cool extra minus all the other functionality. If you really want to spend $600 on a tablet, the iPad is very much not the best option out there, and the more they reveal about it the more that seems to be the case.
Still, for those who want to spend way too much money on what is essentially a glorified iPod Touch, more power to ya! I'm sure hipsters will gloat for a long time, until their nerdy friends show up with devices that are better in every way, except perhaps a little bit of style. (note that that also tends to crush the superiority feeling, even if they pretend to still have it)
The problem with the Apple Store (or rather, it's Magic) is that because every app has been tried and vetted by Apple people are more willing to try things out.
Ahhh, no WONDER viruses have such a hard time spreading, it's because nobody installs random shit that hasn't been vetted by a trusted company!!
Oh, wait, it's not opposite day, never mind.
Most people could care less about the fact that Apple verifies (and often poorly) the apps in the app store. Most people are a little worried about security, but not really. On the flip side, they don't really care that the app store is not "open". What they care about is "Oooh! Shiney! I want it! How do I get it?" How easy is it to get the stuff they want? That's all that really matters. For a while, the App store ruled on phones because there was nothing like it before - getting apps onto phones was either impossible or a pain in the ass, so there weren't really all that many apps out there.
Now there is a new model for getting software onto phones (thanks to Apple), and frankly, Apple's competition is doing the same thing only better. A much lower barrier to entry means the apps on the Android market are growing far faster than the Apple's store, and MOST of the apps are either add supported or free altogether, meaning I'm not spending an extra $50 to get that cool app. That's almost impossible on the app store unless your app is nothing more than a draw to another product, otherwise you have to recoup your costs by charging a small fee. Yes, it leaves the potential for crappy apps, but a good rating system takes care of that better than Apple judging every piece that comes through, and it doesn't add anything to the cost like Apple's system does.
I was actually looking for a PDA type device recently, and almost went to the ipod touch for the purpose, but the apps were the killer. For the stuff I wanted to do the apps were either $10 each or the reviews on them were horrible.
I didn't want to go to a smartphone because I didn't want to be quite that connected, and I didn't want to pay the $30 a month premium, but I actually managed to fenagle my plan such that I saved a little money and got an HTC Hero for less than what I would have spent on an iPod Touch (I already have a Nano, I don't need it for music). So far I love it, I have been able to find most everything I want with good quality and for free. I get the equivalent of what was available for the iPhone and iPod Touch at no cost. Add to that the fact that I haven't seen an app on the market that cost more than $3, I'll be much more willing to buy certain classes of apps at that price.
I personally think that, with the exception of iPods, Apple is great at innovating but terrible at dominating the market. Even the iPhone only peaked at 4% market share (20-30% of smartphones, something like that), and that is dwindling thanks to Android, and they'll never get it back. They did the exact same thing with PC's. I'm frankly not really sure how iPods managed to dominate like they have, given Apple's history. Crappy competitors I guess.
Why not? As long as he doesn't call them fools to their faces, the hipsters will never know, and they'll never care.
And Latte's really are marked up that much, I mean seriously, it's about 2 tablespoons of moderate to high grade coffee, which will run you about $0.26 at retail prices, and probably less than that given you'll be buying in bulk. Add in two cups of milk (maybe $0.50 again), a couple shots of syrup, and bam! $6 drink. It takes all of 30 seconds for a professional Barrista to make, at $10 per hour that's $0.08. Of course you've got overhead and such, but depending on the volume you do that can be extremely low. Rough guestimate I'd say it costs between $1 and $2 to make a large double-shot latte, and those sell for $5-$6.
My rough guesstimate there puts it at anywhere from 300% to 600% markup (as long as you are doing good volume, if your coffee or location sucks it won't work no matter what), and I was probably a little high on materials cost for most places. Pretty good, I'd say.
There's even a netbook with a touchscreen and a keyboard, so the only real selling points for apple are its "sleekness" and their stranglehold on applications.
Frankly, I don't think it will do nearly as well as the iPhone and iPod Touch have because I don't think it will have the primary draw that those two products have. Here's how it breaks down:
iPhone - "It's a phone, and it does all this too?!"
iPod Touch - "It's a music player, and it does all this too?!"
iPad - "...that's neat, but what else does it do?"
Please note that I'm not trying to say it will be a bad device or that it won't be popular, I just don't think it is going to be the slam dunk the iPhone and iPod Touch have been. As a side note, here it is a few years later and the iPhone is already moving toward being alienated in the market they effectively created - consumer grade smart-phones. Why does Apple always do this to themselves? It's the same thing they did with PC's. They friggin invented personal computing, yet they didn't have the forsight then to dominate the market in the long term, and apparently they still don't. I think Jobbs, for all his charisma and leadership skills, is holding his company back for not seeing the longer term. Not to say anybody has done it better at Apple, they haven't, but they are choking their potential instead of maximizing it.
My prediction is we'll see a new class of cheap touchscreen devices in the next 5-10 years, and once again Apple will be relegated to just a small fraction of that market, instead of dominating it. What's worse is Apples insistence on proprietary hardware (aka not sharing the software platform with other companies) will mean it will have the only devices incompatible with all the others, further limiting their market share.
There is a huge difference in scale here.
The iPhone and iPod Touch work well because touchscreens work well when held in one hand and manipulated with another (or held in both and manipulated with both).
Apple may be good at UI design, but once you start setting the iPad down because it is too big to keep holding all the time, things will start to get annoying in a hurry. Laptops are bad enough without a stand as far as neck-strain and the like are concerned when you don't have a stand, a touchscreen PC will be significantly worse, and no UI can make up for that.
This is basically going to be a pretty expensive device that will do a handful of things much better and a whole lot of things much worse. I honestly think most people who use this after a while are going to say "It's great but..." and look at either a straight up laptop, or look at netbooks like the EEE PC T91, which is a swivel style touchscreen, and costs less than the iPad will. If the touchscreen is as good as I think it will be, the major effect of the iPad will be to improve touchscreens on larger devices.
I distinctly recall Sony trying that with the PS3, and people didn't bite.
Now, that was gold plated poop, this is just silver plated poop, but it is really really shiny!!
That doesn't matter to a lot more people than you'd imagine.
Personally, I could care less who makes them and who approves them, I just want them free. ;)
A couple points:
First, touchscreen technology has come a long way in recent years (largely thanks to the iPhone showing what's possible in a consumer device), so provided the screen is just large enough to fit both hands on it I could see touch typing working out fine - my little HTC Hero picks up my keypresses amazingly well, and I have fat sausage fingers. Lack of actual keys will be a bit unfamiliar, perhaps, but consumers will get over any initial difficulty with the "coolness" factor.
Second, keeping the first point in mind, touchscreen PC's have been around for years and have always been a niche device precisely because of its form factor. They just aren't that useful except in certain circumstances. For example, they are easier to use while standing, but much more awkward while sitting at a table, and quite frankly a bit absurd while resting it in your lap. They are great for hand writing notes and drawing, but no matter how well they do an on-screen keyboard typing will never be as good on a tablet as on a laptop or even a netbook, for the simple fact that the screen will be in a much more awkward position.
That's not to say it won't do well, I'd just be very surprised if an iPad style touchscreen class of devices became anywhere near as popular as the netbook has been.
Now, if they were really good they'd ship it with a stand and a built-in projector keyboard. That wouldn't fix the lap-issue, but it would do a lot to make it a more versatile device like the netbooks are, and it would have massive coolness factor.
Pu-244 does not have 244 protons, it still only has 94 protons.
The article was speaking of base atomic weight, they certainly weren't suggesting heavier isotopes did not exist. They were talking about the element itself, not its potential isotope. The element Plutonium has an atomic weight of about 188, Coppernicium has an atomic weight of about 224. Coppernicium is the heavier element. If you'll read more carefully, they are careful to refer to proton count so nit-pickers like you can understand their meaning.
It's like someone says "The Honda Acura weigh 3,000 pounds, and the Toyota Corolla is heavier at 3,500 pounds", and you come out and say "Nuh uh! My dad's got an Acura that weighs 6,000 pounds! It's got a ton and a half of lead in the trunk!" It doesn't really mean you're right, even though there are Acuras that weigh more than Corollas.
That's the great thing about Fibonacci, he keeps coming round again!
You do know that "unobtainium" was a nod to geeks and nerds everywhere right? Since it's commonly used by engineers in "what if" scenarios for what they would design if they had materials that do not exist today, right? You knew that already, right?
Oh you missed that? Sorry.
Why are you here again?
It's called Laches. If a person is is infringing on a patented technology unknowingly, and the patent owner knows their patent is being infringed, they must actively pursue resolution. They cannot sit and wait for someone to profit off of their invention for the purposes of suing them later and getting more money.
The defense boils down to what is essentially an implied license to use the patent. You can think of it like this: if the patent holder knowingly allows someone to use their patent, they have implicitly licensed it by their inaction.
Obviously a patent holder has a reasonable amount of time after discovering the offense to contact the infringer and negotiate a license, and there is a reasonable amount of time for the license negotiations. This varies depending on the situation, and is determined by a judge or jury.
In other words, if you know someone is using an invention you've patented, and you let them use it for 5 years without telling them they're infringing on your patent, you generally have no right to sue them for damages, or even to negotiate a license.
It follows the old concept of "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". Well, allowing someone to use your patent is exactly what a license does, so if you allow someone to use your patent without seeking payment, you've licensed it to them by action.
It's similar to what happens when someone doesn't fight trade mark infringement, the only real difference is you don't lose the rights to your patent, just the right to sue that particular individual or company.
It took a couple years to figure out that Google was the king of internet search, and Yahoo his chambermaid? Or it took a couple years to drum up something that looks like it may possibly considered infringing if you look at it "just so"?
I can't really buy the first possibility, and the patents sound generic enough to cover most anything they'd have done.
Google has been around a long, long time - three years (the period of their application prior to approval) is more than enough time to find something infringing about Google's search, and another six years to negotiate? Seriously? I call BS on the whole thing, and I hope the claim gets slapped down via laches.
They may not have come up with a product, but they certainly would have been open to licensing it to someone else. The beauty of patents is it's out in the open where everyone can see. You can't hide it, and if they did not take advantage of it they would have lost it anyway.
Any attempt to bury it would have simply failed, that's the whole purpose of the patent system, is to prevent the loss of innovations.
If they had simply patented it, they would be much more of a technology powerhouse than they are now. We'd still have GUI's, and they would not be expensive.
Besides, by now there would be no licensing fees, and wouldn't have been for the last ten years. Nothing really changes, except we might be 15-20 years farther along with GUI's if Xerox hadn't been so stupid.
Three years is far too short for a patent. 20-30 years might be a little excessive, but 3 years is just as absurd as 100. If you put that into effect, the only things that will be patented are trivial items of no great benefit to society. Everything that takes more than three or four years to develop will be locked away as a trade secret instead, which is the opposite of what we want.
In case you don't understand the consequences of that, one would no more generic drugs. They would be gone, because Big Pharma, who spent 20 years developing that new wonder drug, would never tell anybody how they made it. Currently, however, after a number of years generics are licensed and cheap drugs flood the market. It's one of the few things keeping socialized health care afloat outside of the US, because some of these drugs retail at $1000 a pill.
Patents sole purpose should be to encourage innovation. Patent trolling and patent portfolios do nothing towards this end and actively, often parasitically discourage it and a great cost to the society they depend on.
You didn't say what you'd do about this. Personally, I'd make patent ownership non-transferable. You could still put clauses in employment contracts stating that anything patented during their employment is immediately licensed to the company at no cost, but actual ownership and further licensing belongs to the inventor. They should certainly be able to delegate management of the patent to their company or a third party, but it should remain the individual's (or group of individuals) patent and it should never belong to a company, period. That would destroy patent trolls, as they'd never own another patent.
Patents should be granted rapidly. Pending patents help no-one while discouraging research and innovation. Either you have one or you don't.
The problem there is the sheer number of patent applications and the expense to process them. Right now it costs about $200 to file for a patent. Because of this, hundreds of thousands of patents are filed every year. To get them processed in a reasonable amount of time would take ten times the staff and much greater related expenses. You would probably have to raise the price to $3000-4000 per application, which seriously raises the barrier to entry. That may not be a bad thing, but I don't think it is what you were going for.
Patents should be reasonably easy to get. We should encourage their use, with a few sensible restriction (below).
Doesn't jive with:
Patents should only be granted for new ideas or new technologies and should never extend their protection onto old or existing technology. This is particularly important for software, where new code should be patentable (explained below) but at the end of the patents term only additions or patches might be considered new and therefore patentable.
It is already too easy to get patents, and too difficult to do adequate research on whether or not a patent idea is unique, innovative, and non-obvious. Any sort of streamlining without making these things easier for the patent officers simply makes things worse.
All we really need is to be sure that patents are truly innovative first, that the information in the patent is significant enough that a subject matter expert could easily duplicate the invention, and that the patent is granted as quickly as possible while still maintaining the first and second criteria.
The real magic of patents is that, even if someone can't afford to license the patent themselves, if they have the design in their hands and the knowledge to implement it, they can then begin work on the next progression in the technology. They can then patent the innovative improvement and make their own money, and somebody else can then improve upon that design. The technology can progress as fast as possible in this way, regardless of whether the patent terms are 5 years or 50. O
OS = Operating System, actually. You want OSS or FOSS, though the F is almost always redundant.
OSS != communism, certainly, but it is a form of socialism. It's like sharing, it's voluntary so it's not just no big deal, it's friggin awesome. It's the coersive forms of socialism that can be scary and nasty.
As for this IIPA group, they are either incredibly ignorant (possible, but if so it must be by choice), or they just want to manipulate the system to their advantage - which is probably the case.
Nobody is talking about inter-software dependancies, it's OS dependancies, and Apple is rather notorious for breaking them.
I'm sure you've been a Mac user so long that you're just used to buying the occasional piece of new software with every major OSX update, and you probably just wait until you need new hardware too and get it all out of the way at once, but for 90% of computer users that's not normal.
With every major (and sometimes even minor) OSX udate, core API's are changed, and any program that relies on the behavior of a function that has changed (usually because it was actually buggy behavior and nobody realized it) is now fundamentally broken. Sometimes this can simply be patched around, but if the software made that function's behavior a core part of its structure, a complete re-write is necessary.
That's what we mean when we are talking about dependancies.
Linux keeps these functions in open libraries, thus avoiding the problem (but potentially making library management a bitch). Windows keeps these functions in system Dll's (binary libraries) that are not open, but MS will add a workaround in the library specific to the piece of software if a developer lets them know the changed function breaks their old software (the exception to this is Vista, and was a major reason large companies wouldn't make the switch). Apple, however, basically tells the developers "fuck off, you did it wrong, you fix it", even if the functionality had worked the same way for years.
Except of course, when you install that shiny new OS that Apple likes to send out every year and discover half of your programs no longer work.
But right, no dependancies to deal with there! Obviously something changed in the program itself, not the updated platform that modified the functions your application depends on to run.
God, seriously, how do guys not understand what a dependancy is? Do you think programs stop working after updates just for the hell of it? A system API is a dependancy. Not only that, some system API's are dependancies for every single program that runs on OSX. They are often referred to as core API's. If Apple changes the behavior of a function call in one of their API's, they have just broken any program that depends on that function call.
They do this with every single update. Obviously it's only ever a handful of programs at a time until a major update hits, but they break dependancies all the time, and there is no recourse. They also don't tell you this, so you can go out and spend $150 on that shiny new version of OSX, blissfully unaware that a $300 program no longer works. What are you going to do, buy the new version of that $300 program that worked perfectly fine, or return the $150 OSX and simply not update your computer any more?
Don't think Apple is being evil here, that's not what I'm saying. Usually the dependancy breaks because the actual behavior of the function was buggy, and not what was intended. So they fix the function call, but any program that relied on the buggy behavior is now broken. Microsoft does the same thing all the time, the difference is, with the exception of Vista, they'll put in a work around for any developer who discovers the updated OS breaks their software. Apple gives developers and user's a big F-U and tells them to write/buy new software that correctly uses the fixed functions. This can be a disaster for developers if they did not realize the behavior was not what was intended, and built their entire piece of software around that behavior.
Even so, though, that's not really a dependency issue - it's more of a compatibility issue. The issue isn't a missing library - it's a missing piece of hardware or a missing operating system.
I'm not sure what you think backwards compatibility is all about, but I'll make it really, really simple for you: backwards compatability = maintaining dependancies. When the dependancies change, compatibility breaks. They change an API function (core library function, whatever you want to call it) that a particular program depends on (that's the definition of what a dependancy is) and the program no longer runs on the updated OS. If it is simply a system library that has changed, the developer can work around it if they so desire by repackaging the old library with their app (assuming there are no licensing issues, which there probably are). However, if the necessary functionality is in a library they don't have access to, they're fucked. Also, when you start having to maintain multiple versions of the same libraries you get into what is referred to in the Windows world as "DLL Hell". Dll obviously comes from the Windows binary library format, you could just call it "Library Hell". It's the same situation no matter the OS when you have proprietary libraries involved.
Basically, if you want true forwards and backwards compatability the Mac forces you back into the stone ages as far as libraries and the like are concerned, you can't use any of theirs because they will at some point change and break your compatibility, so you have to make all of your own from scratch. What's the point of having an advanced platform to work on if they keep pulling it out from under you every few years?
Linux is both the best and the worst about this at the same time. It's the best because, if you really want to put in the effort, everything is backwards and forwards compatible. The platform you work on can be custom made however you like it. It's the worst because the very flexibility that allows this makes installing non-repository software a potential nightmare.
Try using an old Mac app on a new version of OSX to see what the GP is talking about.
A friend of mine recently switched from Mac to PC after having one for 6 years for this very reason, even though he loved his Mac. He hadn't been able to update the OS in years because Apple had dropped support for both his hardware and his software.
So when it came down to it, he decided it would be better to get the same power at a third the price and get DJ software that would be compatible accross multiple OS and hardware updates in the future.
Macs are great at a lot of things, but backwards compatibility isn't one of them. With the exception of Vista, which was a horrible aberration, Windows is far, far better with backwards compatibility. That means your hardware and your software both have potentially a much longer life span if you choose.
Linux is a bit of mixed bag, but has the potential of being better then both for backwards compatibility depending on what you use.
The law doesn't work that way. Misrepresentation is misrepresentation, and if interstate comerce is involved it's fraud.
Now, that doesn't mean you leave out the ass covering statement, because they might be able to show that they did not intend to mislead anybody, and it was just a mistake that was missed. That can work, because intent is 9/10 of the law, but is by no means a given, they will still have to fight for it and hard.
You've got to remember that just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it so. It's the same thing with EULA's, they talk a good game, but in fact a lot of what is in there is completely unenforceable. They can say they can change the EULA whenever they want, but that doesn't mean they can change it whenever they want and still have it apply to you.
The flip side, of course, is that if they never make the claim they'll never get away with it, so they put all the useless unenforceable crap in there anyway, just in case.
Man, your reading comprehension is terrible.
There are no actual patents involved in this case, period. There can be no judgement for or against a patent in this case, because there are no patents involved. No patent will be "clarified" accept to say that yes it does exist (or at least its application exists) or no it doesn't, and yes it does apply or no it doesn't apply. That's it. Nothing is going on with the patent itself, at all.
What is involved is a statement of patents pending which, if there were no such patents pending, is fraud.
So the possibilities are as follows:
- The plantif can prove that there were not applications pending for all of the "patent pending" statements on the box, or that the pending patents did not actually apply to the game. If they do, Activision can be hit for fraud and end up paying $500 for each copy of the game they sold.
- The plantif can fail to prove that there were no applications pending for some patent statements or fail to prove that the patents do not apply. In that case, the little fly goes away.
If Activision attempts to "leave it ambiguous" they will almost certainly lose. The burden is on the plantiff, but it's pretty easy to prove just about anything if the defense doesn't fight back.
You've never actually followed a supreme court case, have you?
They are actually kind of famous for fucking over congress and presidents.
The nice thing about SC justices, is that though they may be nominated by presidents and approved by congress, once they are in they are in for life. They have absolutely zero political pressure from anybody, they can do whatever they like. This sounds dangerous, but given the legal background it takes to get to that level, these people usually care more about whether a law is legit or not (they can have differing philosophies about that) than whatever a particular group actually wants.
This leads to a lot of long standing laws being simply struck down, and the whole legal structure changes. They even reverse themselves when they are wrong, just look at the history of slavery in the US. One SCOTUS said it was perfectly constitutional, another said it was not. That second judgement stands until a slavery case is heard before the SCOTUS again. And that, of course, is the balance of the SCOTUS's awesome powers. They can only strike down a law in a case that has worked its way through the court system completely before landing before them. They don't get to just pick whatever issue they feel like, except to pick among the pool of cases that have made it to their level.
"This athlete is inspired by his brother who has Down's Syndrome,"
I'm sorry, I have to stick up for that guy and everybody else who has Cerebral Palsey.
First off, it's not Down's Syndrom, or anything like Down's Syndrom. The guy is not mentally handicapped at all. It affects muscular control, not cognative ability. The reason he talks funny and acts funny is because he cannot control his muscles properly. In case you're too stupid to understand the way the body works, muscles are what control arm movements, leg movements, head and neck, vocal chords, and anything else that moves. In other words, if you can't control your muscles, you are going to act and talk funny. The guy was not supposed to be able to walk at all, and yet he does, and even skiis when he can. His story, like the few others I've known who have Cerebral Palsey, is truly inspiring.
As for the rest of your comment, I couldn't agree more. Short blurbs for circumstances truly inspiring, sure, but spending 20 minutes on it is too much. For heaven's sake they even had a long Michael Phelps interview the other day! Why? Well he's a fan of the Olympics, of course! Dumbasses. NBC's coverage sucks, they cut out half of all the best sports in prime time, yet show curling non-stop on their lesser channels. WTF?
I've got issues with the IOC too, like allowing sports like curling, hockey, and figure skating - especially fucking ice dancing - into the Olympics in the first place. What the hell is Olympic about any of those? The Olympics is all about FEATS, feats of strength, feats of speed, feats of agility. Any team sport where you aren't acting as a single unit (a la bobsledding style) or any sport requiring style points is either broken or doesn't belong at all.
They can have their own championships, and I have great respect for the skill required (I actually find curling fascinating, been watching it a lot), but they are not Olympic and shouldn't be in the games.
That's my opinion anyway.