It's pretty easy to say "death to..." and when called out on it to say "well we really meant..." which is what Ahmadinejad the leaders before him, and the Ayatollah's have done too. I'm sure you already know what this is called, and I don't have to spell it out for you.
So, you are saying you really believe that this is an $1100 cable and that people actually buy these? This cable manages to transcend the laws of physics somehow, and while other digital cables either transmit the 100% digital signal, or don't, this one manages to transmit more than 100% of the 0s and 1s and delivers more data than was fed into it?
The price $1100 seems about average for cables that transmit 1100100% of the digital signal (where radix=2)
Or do you really not understand how digital data works?
According to Shannon, cables that transmit more or less than the intended signal should be avoided.
"Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant military conflict."
I read the War Powers Resolution is also effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in Internet censorship.
Time for the voting public to purge this misguided house of government of all its privilege and narcissism.
TFA labels RichRelevance as a "retail analysis company" giving the reader the impression that the statistics arise from an impartial survey of global consumer behavior such as provided by organisations like Forrester Research. RichRelevance is neither independent nor impartial. It is a company that provides e-commerce, advertising and marketing services to "retailing partners sites" and by this very nature cannot cited as an authoritative or reliable source.
Namecheap hasn't been an enom reseller for a while. see here. Not affiliated, just a happy customer.
They are indeed an ICANN accredited registrar but they also remain an eNom reseller as well. http://davezan.com/does-enom-own-namecheap.html. It is apparent from their emails that in my case they decided to transfer my domains through eNom. Either that or they provided me with a four year old transfer authorization notification.
"From: Namecheap.com info@transfer-approval.com
Attention: Universe II
Re: Transfer of UNIVERSEII.COM
eNom, Inc. has received a request from Universe II on 22 Dec 2011 to become the new registrar of record."
Either way it's fine with me. My only criteria is that they are not Godaddy!
Also not affiliated with any registrar or reseller; just a happy new Namecheap customer.
Namecheap. They currently have a coupon code SOPASUCKS for domain transfers.
I can happily confirm that all of my godaddy domains have been successfully transferred to namecheap (eNom) without any noticable downtime.
The geeks have spoken.
You are both right actually. Science encompasses observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment. Whether a scientific investigation begins at any particular step is irrelevant to the process.
This is a common misconception. The "first-to-file" rule under the America Invents Act (Patent Act) is only relevant to prior-art within a one year timeframe before the filing of a patent.
"The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure."
Clearly prior-art covers the selection of structures, linking to candidate actions (pop-up menu) and the selection of an action from a pop-up menu. The presentation of pre-detected structures may be considered novel; yet given such a preponderance of prior-art, this alone may not satisfy non-obviousness. We shall see what the courts decide.
There are no FEATURES claimed in the patent. its an interface/process patents. Unless the Simon did everything just like the iPhone it sort of pointless.
I suggest you read up on the definition of prior art. Information made available to the public in any form that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality is prior art. Under the duty of disclosure for all US patents, Apple is required to cite prior-art in their patent application. Since Apple did not cite the IBM Simon to my knowledge in any relevant patent, present and future defendants (HTC, Microsoft/Nokia, Google/Motorola, Sony... etc etc) may have sufficient grounds to prove inequitable conduct, which would render any or all such patents unenforceable.
In my opinion it is both legally and morally reprehensible for Apple to claim an innovative and novel invention and on such a basis to prosecute supposed infringement, when their claims were neither innovative nor novel; but simply a modernized facade to someone else's invention. I sincerely hope that the courts take an appropriately dim view of such inequitable conduct.
no Apple's patent covers the phone number being detected in the text and the number being turned into and active menu with the possibility to dial the number. That is not the same as selecting it and hitting dial.
If you refer to the user guide page 20 you will see "When you've marked the number you want... a pop-up menu appears. To dial, select Dial from the menu."
No where on that page does it say you can take a phone call, and switch to one of the other apps will still on the call.
From page 34 of the user guide for instance:
"You can get to the Mobile Office screen from any screen by touching [icon]" There is no restriction prohibiting this function from the In-Call screen.
Interestingly the user guide page 20 states: "The ln-Call screen will appear as the Phone feature places the call. For example, this can be useful if someone sends you a phone number in an electronic mail message. Just mark it and dial." Which is also clearly prior art in relation to the Apple lawsuit against HTC.
The IBM Simon was a touch screen smartphone with features identical to those claimed in this patent. It was first announced in 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon
Or perhaps reality is mathematics and each time our measurement precision increases we notice things that we couldn't previously see. If the Universe were a huge digital image comprised of plank length pixels; currently our best technology can at best get a few pixels for every thousand... That's akin to the difference between a 16x16 thumbnail icon compared to the mega-pixel digital image it represents.
Math is the study of patterns.
Physics is the study of reality.
We use math to describe physics.
Insight 1: Reality is mathematical
Insight 2: We describe reality using mathematical patterns
Our current quantum math tells us what will happen.
Our best quantum math is currently probabilistic.
All our finest measurements can only give us a guess as to what will happen.
Insight 3: We have found mathematical patterns that are consistent with our measurements
Insight 4: We have found mathematical patterns that approximate our measurements
If the wave function is a result of a real, physical thing, we can potential learn more about the real, physical thing, and perhaps measure that, and get take that into account in our math, thus removing all the probabilities. All the quantum fuzziness could go away.
Insight 5: As our measurement ability improves, our description of reality becomes less approximate
Conclusion: 800 years ago the best assumption of the shape of the Earth was based on a simple theory that was predictive of all known phenomena at the time: The Earth was flat. By today's standards that theory remains as equivalently predictive as Newtonian mechanics or evolution. The only small hitch is that experimental evidence disproved the the flat-Earth just as with Newtonian mechanics, however there are compelling reasons to keep both alive (maps are more convenient to carry than spheres just as Newtonian mechanics is more convenient to calculate than general relativity. So long as our ability to measure improves, no school of thought will remain immune to disproof.
China had better build all the infrastructure they can afford before the west defaults on their debts. When that happens, rattling a few sabers will be the only fallback China will have.
I find it kind of spooky that sqrt(5) appears in the formula for the golden ratio and in the closed expression formula to calculate Fibonacci numbers, and here we have it again... You almost couldn't pick a more innocuous looking number than 5... But the sqrt(5) thing is like some cosmic trickster looked at the succeeding prime numbers...
The only thing I find spooky is the anthropomorphisation of mathematical formula.
It should, at least until Jan. 2013, when a GOP president is likely to be sitting in the White House (thanks to the economy not turning around), starting to actually act upon their own "regulations are killing us," campaign rhetoric.
I am not an American and am not sympathetic to either Democrat or Republican ideologies. I wish to ask the American people on both sides of the economic debate for a reality check.
a) Do you think it possible that one of the largest and most complicated economies in the world can be turned around from the verge of collapse in under four years in a globally uncertain economic climate by a president from either political party?
b) Do you think the president should be held accountable for your economic recovery given that your own constitution vests the responsibility and authority for your economy with a separate house of government that the president has no authority or control over apart from a limited right to veto legislation?
c) Do you think that the problems with your economy can be solved by either political ideology given that both parties have spent and taxed at strikingly similar rates since the 1940s?
Perhaps what we need is a fourth branch of government, smallish and economical, operating independently, with a mission to build and maintain a friendly user interface for citizens to manage their government. Apple could have pulled that off in its glory years, when Steve Jobs was doing all the work and his 60,000 employees filled their time spreading spiteful anecdotes about him.
I have some questions to help me decide if Scott is coining a newer and darker style of satire or succumbing to some form of dissonance: You suggest creating a new branch of government with the sole purpose of educating voters. I appreciate the satire in your article, but do you really think that giving the government more scope and authority will resolve the misgivings people have about their government? If yes, then do you think an officially sanctioned and funded government media wing will lead to selfless and unbiased expression of the facts to the voting public? If yes then do you think that transparent, open and unbiased government communications will continue in perpetuity; even if such discourse contradicts the ideologies, reasoning and actions of the government itself? If yes then why do you suggest that such a government PR agency, guided only by the greater good of the public to provide transparent, open and unbiased knowledge to the voting public need engage in glitzy Apple-style marketing? Surely this egalitarian, unmandated house of government would be more akin to national public radio rather than an iTuneseque media engine?
While there is a bit of sensationalism involved, just imagine if we scaled everything down. Imagine the earth is your face, and the asteroid is a bullet coming within arms length of you. You'd probably feel like it was being shot directly at you as well.
If this analogy were scaled correctly, the bullet would be smaller than a bb pellet and the head would be denser than steel, meaning the analogy is also sensationalist.
Even if the analogy was valid, if you knew that the chance of a bullet hitting you was so low that a calculator with a precision of 1000 decimal places would still show it as zero. would you still be terrified? If the answer is 'yes' then the sensationalism is working.
Slashdot Mirror
It's pretty easy to say "death to..." and when called out on it to say "well we really meant..." which is what Ahmadinejad the leaders before him, and the Ayatollah's have done too. I'm sure you already know what this is called, and I don't have to spell it out for you.
What is worse than idiot puppets like Ahmadinejad is the religious hypocrisy that empowers them. Just look at the war-mongering drivel such religions are based on: Qur’an 47:4?, Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Qur’an 9:5, Numbers 31:17-18.
So, you are saying you really believe that this is an $1100 cable and that people actually buy these? This cable manages to transcend the laws of physics somehow, and while other digital cables either transmit the 100% digital signal, or don't, this one manages to transmit more than 100% of the 0s and 1s and delivers more data than was fed into it?
The price $1100 seems about average for cables that transmit 1100100% of the digital signal (where radix=2)
Or do you really not understand how digital data works?
According to Shannon, cables that transmit more or less than the intended signal should be avoided.
"Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant military conflict."
I read the War Powers Resolution is also effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in Internet censorship .
Time for the voting public to purge this misguided house of government of all its privilege and narcissism.
this statistic seems unlikely.
TFA labels RichRelevance as a "retail analysis company" giving the reader the impression that the statistics arise from an impartial survey of global consumer behavior such as provided by organisations like Forrester Research. RichRelevance is neither independent nor impartial. It is a company that provides e-commerce, advertising and marketing services to "retailing partners sites" and by this very nature cannot cited as an authoritative or reliable source.
I've already transferred my domain and cancelled the auto renewal on another. Ha.
As mentioned in a previous post, the geeks have spoken.
Namecheap hasn't been an enom reseller for a while. see here. Not affiliated, just a happy customer.
They are indeed an ICANN accredited registrar but they also remain an eNom reseller as well. http://davezan.com/does-enom-own-namecheap.html. It is apparent from their emails that in my case they decided to transfer my domains through eNom. Either that or they provided me with a four year old transfer authorization notification.
"From: Namecheap.com info@transfer-approval.com Attention: Universe II Re: Transfer of UNIVERSEII.COM eNom, Inc. has received a request from Universe II on 22 Dec 2011 to become the new registrar of record."
Either way it's fine with me. My only criteria is that they are not Godaddy!
Also not affiliated with any registrar or reseller; just a happy new Namecheap customer.
Namecheap. They currently have a coupon code SOPASUCKS for domain transfers.
I can happily confirm that all of my godaddy domains have been successfully transferred to namecheap (eNom) without any noticable downtime. The geeks have spoken.
You are both right actually. Science encompasses observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment. Whether a scientific investigation begins at any particular step is irrelevant to the process.
Prior art irrelevant after the patent reform
This is a common misconception. The "first-to-file" rule under the America Invents Act (Patent Act) is only relevant to prior-art within a one year timeframe before the filing of a patent.
once again...you had to mark it
This is a direct quote from US patent 5,946,647
"The application program interface communicates with the application running concurrently, and transmits relevant information to the user interface. Thus, the user interface can present and enable selection of the detected structures, and upon selection of a detected structure, present the linked candidate actions. Upon selection of an action, the action processor performs the action on the detected structure."
Clearly prior-art covers the selection of structures, linking to candidate actions (pop-up menu) and the selection of an action from a pop-up menu. The presentation of pre-detected structures may be considered novel; yet given such a preponderance of prior-art, this alone may not satisfy non-obviousness. We shall see what the courts decide.
There are no FEATURES claimed in the patent. its an interface/process patents. Unless the Simon did everything just like the iPhone it sort of pointless.
I suggest you read up on the definition of prior art. Information made available to the public in any form that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality is prior art. Under the duty of disclosure for all US patents, Apple is required to cite prior-art in their patent application. Since Apple did not cite the IBM Simon to my knowledge in any relevant patent, present and future defendants (HTC, Microsoft/Nokia, Google/Motorola, Sony... etc etc) may have sufficient grounds to prove inequitable conduct, which would render any or all such patents unenforceable.
In my opinion it is both legally and morally reprehensible for Apple to claim an innovative and novel invention and on such a basis to prosecute supposed infringement, when their claims were neither innovative nor novel; but simply a modernized facade to someone else's invention. I sincerely hope that the courts take an appropriately dim view of such inequitable conduct.
no Apple's patent covers the phone number being detected in the text and the number being turned into and active menu with the possibility to dial the number. That is not the same as selecting it and hitting dial.
If you refer to the user guide page 20 you will see "When you've marked the number you want... a pop-up menu appears. To dial, select Dial from the menu."
And this comes from a patent filed in 1997.
I believe 1992 is prior to 1997.
No where on that page does it say you can take a phone call, and switch to one of the other apps will still on the call.
From page 34 of the user guide for instance: "You can get to the Mobile Office screen from any screen by touching [icon]" There is no restriction prohibiting this function from the In-Call screen.
User guide (PDF) http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/bibuxton/buxtoncollection/a/pdf/Simon%20User%20Manuals.pdf
Interestingly the user guide page 20 states: "The ln-Call screen will appear as the Phone feature places the call. For example, this can be useful if someone sends you a phone number in an electronic mail message. Just mark it and dial." Which is also clearly prior art in relation to the Apple lawsuit against HTC.
The IBM Simon was a touch screen smartphone with features identical to those claimed in this patent. It was first announced in 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Simon
Corporations are considered people in the US.
If that were the case, I would tend to support capital punishment.
Or perhaps reality is mathematics and each time our measurement precision increases we notice things that we couldn't previously see. If the Universe were a huge digital image comprised of plank length pixels; currently our best technology can at best get a few pixels for every thousand... That's akin to the difference between a 16x16 thumbnail icon compared to the mega-pixel digital image it represents.
Math is the study of patterns. Physics is the study of reality. We use math to describe physics.
Insight 1: Reality is mathematical Insight 2: We describe reality using mathematical patterns
Our current quantum math tells us what will happen. Our best quantum math is currently probabilistic. All our finest measurements can only give us a guess as to what will happen.
Insight 3: We have found mathematical patterns that are consistent with our measurements Insight 4: We have found mathematical patterns that approximate our measurements
If the wave function is a result of a real, physical thing, we can potential learn more about the real, physical thing, and perhaps measure that, and get take that into account in our math, thus removing all the probabilities. All the quantum fuzziness could go away.
Insight 5: As our measurement ability improves, our description of reality becomes less approximate Conclusion: 800 years ago the best assumption of the shape of the Earth was based on a simple theory that was predictive of all known phenomena at the time: The Earth was flat. By today's standards that theory remains as equivalently predictive as Newtonian mechanics or evolution. The only small hitch is that experimental evidence disproved the the flat-Earth just as with Newtonian mechanics, however there are compelling reasons to keep both alive (maps are more convenient to carry than spheres just as Newtonian mechanics is more convenient to calculate than general relativity. So long as our ability to measure improves, no school of thought will remain immune to disproof.
gates is the most overrated idiot going.
Now that Jobs is dead, Gates has definitely moved up the list.
China had better build all the infrastructure they can afford before the west defaults on their debts. When that happens, rattling a few sabers will be the only fallback China will have.
I am pretty sure there is a mathematical definition of democracy...
Democracy=Sum of everyone's opinion/Population/Size of government
SCO is proof that such baseless litigation is not only resistant to findings of fact, but also to common sense, dignity and morality.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/05/144211/sco-zombie-creaks-into-motion-again
As we have seen of late, courts are becoming less tolerant of this form of abuse of the judicial system
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/02/158211/us-marshals-ordered-to-seize-righthaven-property
My hope is that a few more notable cases like this will make the cost-benefit of copyright litigation increasingly less attractive to the trolls
I find it kind of spooky that sqrt(5) appears in the formula for the golden ratio and in the closed expression formula to calculate Fibonacci numbers, and here we have it again... You almost couldn't pick a more innocuous looking number than 5... But the sqrt(5) thing is like some cosmic trickster looked at the succeeding prime numbers...
The only thing I find spooky is the anthropomorphisation of mathematical formula.
Is there any way this could hold up?
It should, at least until Jan. 2013, when a GOP president is likely to be sitting in the White House (thanks to the economy not turning around), starting to actually act upon their own "regulations are killing us," campaign rhetoric.
I am not an American and am not sympathetic to either Democrat or Republican ideologies. I wish to ask the American people on both sides of the economic debate for a reality check.
a) Do you think it possible that one of the largest and most complicated economies in the world can be turned around from the verge of collapse in under four years in a globally uncertain economic climate by a president from either political party?
b) Do you think the president should be held accountable for your economic recovery given that your own constitution vests the responsibility and authority for your economy with a separate house of government that the president has no authority or control over apart from a limited right to veto legislation?
c) Do you think that the problems with your economy can be solved by either political ideology given that both parties have spent and taxed at strikingly similar rates since the 1940s?
Perhaps what we need is a fourth branch of government, smallish and economical, operating independently, with a mission to build and maintain a friendly user interface for citizens to manage their government. Apple could have pulled that off in its glory years, when Steve Jobs was doing all the work and his 60,000 employees filled their time spreading spiteful anecdotes about him.
I have some questions to help me decide if Scott is coining a newer and darker style of satire or succumbing to some form of dissonance: You suggest creating a new branch of government with the sole purpose of educating voters. I appreciate the satire in your article, but do you really think that giving the government more scope and authority will resolve the misgivings people have about their government? If yes, then do you think an officially sanctioned and funded government media wing will lead to selfless and unbiased expression of the facts to the voting public? If yes then do you think that transparent, open and unbiased government communications will continue in perpetuity; even if such discourse contradicts the ideologies, reasoning and actions of the government itself? If yes then why do you suggest that such a government PR agency, guided only by the greater good of the public to provide transparent, open and unbiased knowledge to the voting public need engage in glitzy Apple-style marketing? Surely this egalitarian, unmandated house of government would be more akin to national public radio rather than an iTuneseque media engine?
While there is a bit of sensationalism involved, just imagine if we scaled everything down. Imagine the earth is your face, and the asteroid is a bullet coming within arms length of you. You'd probably feel like it was being shot directly at you as well.
If this analogy were scaled correctly, the bullet would be smaller than a bb pellet and the head would be denser than steel, meaning the analogy is also sensationalist.
Even if the analogy was valid, if you knew that the chance of a bullet hitting you was so low that a calculator with a precision of 1000 decimal places would still show it as zero. would you still be terrified? If the answer is 'yes' then the sensationalism is working.