Yes, I missed that. Even so, the approaches are markedly different. The ThickButtons approach is adjusting the keyboard based on an assumption of what key the user will want to hit next, while the IBM approach is adjusting the keyboard based on where the user expects the keys to be.
No, it doesn't. ThickButtons changes the keyboard layout as you are typing, which would make the keyboard pretty much impossible for a touch typist to use. The IBM method customizes the layout to conform to the user's physical characteristics, making the keyboard easier for a touch typist to use.
That is most definitely NOT the 'exact same thing'. ThickButtons is almost impossible for a touch typist to use. The position of the buttons is constantly changing. It is only suitable for one-finger 'hunt and peck' typing.
The IBM method is designed to make touch pads easier to use for touch typists, by configuring the layout to match the individual's physical characteristics. Once configured, the layout of the keys does not change.
If anybody is stupid enough to believe that for $5 or $10 they can actually own all the music that Spotify has, then they deserve what they get. Nowhere do I see anything on Spotify's site that leads me to believe I would own anything. All they say on the main page (not some cryptic TOS) is that for $5 PER MONTH I can listen to a library of 15 million songs. The thing is priced per month, why the hell would I have to pay per month if I actually own the music.
How can Spotify delete something you own? They don't sell you (or claim to sell you) anything. All they are providing is access to their library of music. If people are dumb enough to believe that for a few bucks a month they actually OWN the songs they listen to, that is their problem, not Spotify's. Your argument is like saying "don't trust your local library, because someday a book you like may be out of circulation". If a song (or book) is that important to you, buy your own copy. For people that just want to listen to more music than they could ever possibly own, Spotify is a great deal, and is certainly not a road to disaster.
What kind of logic is that? Subscribing to spotify is like getting a library card: it gets you access to millions of songs (books) that you can use, but are not yours. You would have to be completely nuts to think that paying $5/mo means you actually own 15 million songs.
Yet another idiot who doesn't understand the simple fact that the 'obvious' test is applied BEFORE the patent is public. Of course it is 'obvious' AFTER the patent is public. If you asked 100 people working in the field how to "defend against DPA and other side-channel attacks" BEFORE the patent (or anything using the patent, or any papers based on the patent, etc) was public, what percentage of them would have come up with the EXACT SAME WAY (not 'general concepts', the exact methods used) that CR did? It had better be very close to 100% if you are going to claim 'obvious'. If you ask these same 100 people AFTER the patent is public, 99 of them will claim that the CR method is 'obvious'.
First Aspen Way is not a 'root kit provider', it is the operator of an Aaron's store. The software (which was not a root kit) provider is DesignerWare, and they state that their software does not do what is claimed by the plaintiff.
Secondly, and more importantly, you completely skipped (but the judge referenced repeatedly) the phrase "irreparable harm". Irreparable harm is damage that can not be undone by any means. Identity theft clearly does not fall into the category, as it is quite easily remedied with cash (if it is found that someone at Aspen Way is in some way involved in stealing your identity you can sue them and recover damages). Furthermore, there is zero evidence that there actually was any identify theft occurring.
Lastly, the judge clearly explains (and provides the relevant court cases to back it up) that an injunction is "a drastic and extraordinary measure that is not to be routinely granted" and "... the burden on the moving party is particularly heavy". Do you agree with these statements, or do you think it would be perfectly OK for me to go to a judge and get an injunction against you doing something I don't happen to like?
The judge got it right. It has absolutely nothing to do with who has more 'rights'.
Here's the problem with your argument: there is nothing inherently illegal about taking a shower, watching someone sleep, or using a webcam. However, any of those things may be illegal if the other person did not give you permission. Signing a contract is giving permission. Your argument about contracts only applies if giving permission is not a legal option (eg., I sign a contract for you to kill me, You sign a contract to sell yourself into slavery, etc).
Obviously? What exactly makes it obvious? Just because some plaintiff in a civil suit said so? If you read the filing, you will see that a) Aaron's expressly denies that it did what she claims, b) Aaron's says it has no relationship with the maker of the software that supposedly does this, c) Aaron's says that it has not and will not install any hardware or software that can do what is claimed, and d) the maker of the software in question denies that it's software is capable of doing what is claimed. All of these claims could be easily refuted in court, so it would be pretty stupid for them to say them if they are not true.
So what? I don't recall ever seeing that Amazon is required to do business with the entire country, that is their choice. If the collected sales tax plus Amazon's higher prices mean Amazon is no longer competitive to local operations, too bad.
If the B&M stores can have people that know all the tax rates, why can't Amazon? If Sears is paying 100 different people across the country to keep up with tax rates, there is absolutely no reason Amazon can't (or shouldn't) be able to do the same thing. Or are tax rates the one thing that can not be effectively communicated by any means other than face-to-face word of mouth?
So Amazon can keep track of the billion different items they offer for sale, know the price of each of them, know if certain customers are eligible for certain discounts, know where each item is and where to ship it from, know that customers that bought 'x' also bought 'y', etc, but they can't keep track of a few hundred tax rates? I call bullshit.
How does use of DRM equate to 'kill off the entire internet'?
If have some scheme where you can 'do what the pirates do' and still get paid for your content, I am sure the studios would LOVE to hear about it. Actually, I am sure that the studios would be happy to do business with anyone who wants to run such an operation - just buy the copyright from the studio, then 'do what the pirates do'.
WTF are you talking about? The 'new model' which you refer to is: Netflix pays studio for right to stream content. When they don't agree on a price, Netflix does not stream the content. Without the studios and their content there is no Netflix.
Also, don't share property, don't share finances, don't provide for the other person in any way, and above all, don't have kids. Yeah, sounds much better,
The system they were trying to sell you was for theft recovery. If a car is stolen it is normally reported to the police. The system you apparently wanted was the 'BMW Vigilante Assist Program.'
It makes sense like it is. The couple was divorcing, so probably don't live together anymore. If the wife (or PI) goes to the husband's house and installs the GPS while the car is in his driveway, she is trespassing. That would mean a law has been broken, and therefore the installation of the device could be illegal. Having a PI install a GPS on your own car, when the car is not on someone else's private property, makes perfect sense.
How would it be illegal? At most it could be a breach of contract (if in fact you have a real contract), and even then only if the disconnection is against the terms of the contract.
Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two independent, publicly traded companies. Neither one of them is 'owned' by anyone else. They each have their own management and boards of directors (and no person is a member of both boards). There is no 'political connection' between them (if you have evidence otherwise, what is it?)
Verizon is a publicly traded company. Verizon Wireless is not - it is a joint venture between Verizon and Vodafone. There is no similarity at all between the relationships of TimeWarner/TimeWarnerCable and Verizon/VerizonWireless.
Still share buildings? So what? The company I work for has spun or sold off several divisions, and the new companies are still in the same buildings, but there is absolutely no connection between the companies. Have the same shareholders? Again, so what? Probably half of the people who own shares in Time Warner also own shares in CocaCola or IBM or some other company - doesn't make all those the same company.
Slashdot Mirror
The turbines are on the ground, not in the tower. There is no need to insulate anything. The tower is just a very tall chimney.
Yes, I missed that. Even so, the approaches are markedly different. The ThickButtons approach is adjusting the keyboard based on an assumption of what key the user will want to hit next, while the IBM approach is adjusting the keyboard based on where the user expects the keys to be.
No, it doesn't. ThickButtons changes the keyboard layout as you are typing, which would make the keyboard pretty much impossible for a touch typist to use. The IBM method customizes the layout to conform to the user's physical characteristics, making the keyboard easier for a touch typist to use.
That is most definitely NOT the 'exact same thing'. ThickButtons is almost impossible for a touch typist to use. The position of the buttons is constantly changing. It is only suitable for one-finger 'hunt and peck' typing.
The IBM method is designed to make touch pads easier to use for touch typists, by configuring the layout to match the individual's physical characteristics. Once configured, the layout of the keys does not change.
If anybody is stupid enough to believe that for $5 or $10 they can actually own all the music that Spotify has, then they deserve what they get. Nowhere do I see anything on Spotify's site that leads me to believe I would own anything. All they say on the main page (not some cryptic TOS) is that for $5 PER MONTH I can listen to a library of 15 million songs. The thing is priced per month, why the hell would I have to pay per month if I actually own the music.
How can Spotify delete something you own? They don't sell you (or claim to sell you) anything. All they are providing is access to their library of music. If people are dumb enough to believe that for a few bucks a month they actually OWN the songs they listen to, that is their problem, not Spotify's. Your argument is like saying "don't trust your local library, because someday a book you like may be out of circulation". If a song (or book) is that important to you, buy your own copy. For people that just want to listen to more music than they could ever possibly own, Spotify is a great deal, and is certainly not a road to disaster.
What kind of logic is that? Subscribing to spotify is like getting a library card: it gets you access to millions of songs (books) that you can use, but are not yours. You would have to be completely nuts to think that paying $5/mo means you actually own 15 million songs.
Yet another idiot who doesn't understand the simple fact that the 'obvious' test is applied BEFORE the patent is public. Of course it is 'obvious' AFTER the patent is public. If you asked 100 people working in the field how to "defend against DPA and other side-channel attacks" BEFORE the patent (or anything using the patent, or any papers based on the patent, etc) was public, what percentage of them would have come up with the EXACT SAME WAY (not 'general concepts', the exact methods used) that CR did? It had better be very close to 100% if you are going to claim 'obvious'. If you ask these same 100 people AFTER the patent is public, 99 of them will claim that the CR method is 'obvious'.
First Aspen Way is not a 'root kit provider', it is the operator of an Aaron's store. The software (which was not a root kit) provider is DesignerWare, and they state that their software does not do what is claimed by the plaintiff.
Secondly, and more importantly, you completely skipped (but the judge referenced repeatedly) the phrase "irreparable harm". Irreparable harm is damage that can not be undone by any means. Identity theft clearly does not fall into the category, as it is quite easily remedied with cash (if it is found that someone at Aspen Way is in some way involved in stealing your identity you can sue them and recover damages). Furthermore, there is zero evidence that there actually was any identify theft occurring.
Lastly, the judge clearly explains (and provides the relevant court cases to back it up) that an injunction is "a drastic and extraordinary measure that is not to be routinely granted" and "... the burden on the moving party is particularly heavy". Do you agree with these statements, or do you think it would be perfectly OK for me to go to a judge and get an injunction against you doing something I don't happen to like?
The judge got it right. It has absolutely nothing to do with who has more 'rights'.
Here's the problem with your argument: there is nothing inherently illegal about taking a shower, watching someone sleep, or using a webcam. However, any of those things may be illegal if the other person did not give you permission. Signing a contract is giving permission. Your argument about contracts only applies if giving permission is not a legal option (eg., I sign a contract for you to kill me, You sign a contract to sell yourself into slavery, etc).
Obviously? What exactly makes it obvious? Just because some plaintiff in a civil suit said so? If you read the filing, you will see that a) Aaron's expressly denies that it did what she claims, b) Aaron's says it has no relationship with the maker of the software that supposedly does this, c) Aaron's says that it has not and will not install any hardware or software that can do what is claimed, and d) the maker of the software in question denies that it's software is capable of doing what is claimed. All of these claims could be easily refuted in court, so it would be pretty stupid for them to say them if they are not true.
So what? I don't recall ever seeing that Amazon is required to do business with the entire country, that is their choice. If the collected sales tax plus Amazon's higher prices mean Amazon is no longer competitive to local operations, too bad.
If the B&M stores can have people that know all the tax rates, why can't Amazon? If Sears is paying 100 different people across the country to keep up with tax rates, there is absolutely no reason Amazon can't (or shouldn't) be able to do the same thing. Or are tax rates the one thing that can not be effectively communicated by any means other than face-to-face word of mouth?
So Amazon can keep track of the billion different items they offer for sale, know the price of each of them, know if certain customers are eligible for certain discounts, know where each item is and where to ship it from, know that customers that bought 'x' also bought 'y', etc, but they can't keep track of a few hundred tax rates? I call bullshit.
How does use of DRM equate to 'kill off the entire internet'?
If have some scheme where you can 'do what the pirates do' and still get paid for your content, I am sure the studios would LOVE to hear about it. Actually, I am sure that the studios would be happy to do business with anyone who wants to run such an operation - just buy the copyright from the studio, then 'do what the pirates do'.
WTF are you talking about? The 'new model' which you refer to is: Netflix pays studio for right to stream content. When they don't agree on a price, Netflix does not stream the content. Without the studios and their content there is no Netflix.
I think in this context "their movies" refers to the studios.
Also, don't share property, don't share finances, don't provide for the other person in any way, and above all, don't have kids. Yeah, sounds much better,
The system they were trying to sell you was for theft recovery. If a car is stolen it is normally reported to the police. The system you apparently wanted was the 'BMW Vigilante Assist Program.'
It makes sense like it is. The couple was divorcing, so probably don't live together anymore. If the wife (or PI) goes to the husband's house and installs the GPS while the car is in his driveway, she is trespassing. That would mean a law has been broken, and therefore the installation of the device could be illegal. Having a PI install a GPS on your own car, when the car is not on someone else's private property, makes perfect sense.
Sure, if you own his car.
How would it be illegal? At most it could be a breach of contract (if in fact you have a real contract), and even then only if the disconnection is against the terms of the contract.
Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two independent, publicly traded companies. Neither one of them is 'owned' by anyone else. They each have their own management and boards of directors (and no person is a member of both boards). There is no 'political connection' between them (if you have evidence otherwise, what is it?)
Verizon is a publicly traded company. Verizon Wireless is not - it is a joint venture between Verizon and Vodafone. There is no similarity at all between the relationships of TimeWarner/TimeWarnerCable and Verizon/VerizonWireless.
You do know that Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two independent companies, right? And Branson's baby is VIRGIN, not VERIZON, you moron.
Still share buildings? So what? The company I work for has spun or sold off several divisions, and the new companies are still in the same buildings, but there is absolutely no connection between the companies. Have the same shareholders? Again, so what? Probably half of the people who own shares in Time Warner also own shares in CocaCola or IBM or some other company - doesn't make all those the same company.