Of course patents have not inspired any innovation in smart phones. That is why cell phones today still weigh several pounds, have an antenna you must pull out several inches, make analog voices calls, and do nothing else. Oh, let me guess, all the advances in batteries, processors, chip sizes, touch screens, displays, communications protocols, etc all was going to happen anyway, right?
Why would have have to disclose that? They never claimed that there was a usable port in there, or that the wireless card was user-replaceable, only that the laptop supported 802.11b/g/n. And it does indeed support as sold, just as they claimed. The consumer got exactly what they paid for. The fact that a particular consumer wants something OTHER than what he paid for does not constitute any kind of fraud on the manufacturers part.
Those are hardly the same. Replacement air filters pose zero liability to GM and Ford.
If you have a problem with your car, you are going to take it somewhere to get fixed. If the car is under warranty and the problem is NOT with your replacement filter, you pay nothing and the manufacturer pays the cost of repairs. If the problem turns out to be your replacement filter YOU must pay the cost of diagnosing and repairing that problem (and are not getting your car back until you do), and the manufacturer hos zero cost because of that problem.
On the other hand, if you buy a cheap computer (which these are) and replace a component and subsequently have a problem, you are going to call their support center (a direct cost to them). If the support center thinks it may be a warranty problem, they will pay for you to ship the computer for repair (another cost for them). Now they must diagnose the problem (more cost to them). If it turns out to be your replacement part that was the problem, now what? They could require you to pay for the original shipping cost, the original phone call, the cost of diagnostics, and the return shipping cost before they ship your PC back, but how many people are going to do that (remember, this was a cheap computer to start with)? Now they are stuck with a broken computer, in a configuration they don't support, that they can spend still more money on to get it back into a supported, working configuration, in hopes that MAYBE they can recoup their loses by selling it as a refurb.
Your replacement air filter results in no financial impact to Ford. Your replacement network card can easily eat up the entire profit of the box (and them some).
Bottom line: if you buy cheap, expect that ALL available measures have been taken to remove cost from that product. That includes support costs, and includes using any and all measures to keep those support costs to a minimum.
I guess it all depends on what you value. For me, I find the ability to go to MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and CNN without paying any one of them very appealing. If seeing ads is the price of that, then so be it. But I sure as hell would not buy any kind of subscription to either one, much less all three. Similarly, I like being able to read all the articles that slashdot summarizes. But would I PAY to be able to access all those articles? No way. Ad-supported web sites are giving me access to a MUCH wider array of information (including all those sites were you can get supposedly unbiased information) than I would otherwise be able (or willing) to afford. It costs me nothing at all to click on some article, even if just to see if it is spouting as much bullshit as claimed. Would I PAY for the opportunity to do that? No.
What you're complaining about is not lack of freedom, it is lack of fairness. As soon as fairness comes into the picture, freedom leaves (as ensuring fairness requires restricting freedom).
This is getting stupider and stupider. You make BETTER decisions in the absense of information? How the hell do you know that? And where, exactly, are you getting your 'unbiased' information? There is no such thing. How do you even know what products are available if you are totally immune to advertising? And don't say 'from other people', because THEY had to find out about the product from somewhere.
Yes, making any sort of major purchase based solely on advertising is stupid. No, going to a restaurant for dinner based on advertising is not stupid. And in either case, advertising at least serves as a trigger for you to know where to start your 'research'.
Nobody made the claim that most people want ads. Nice strawman.
What I said (and apparently alot of people can't grasp) is that IF people want stuff FOR FREE, then ads are a part of that equation.
So instead of asking if people would chose an advertisement free platform (what a stupid question), ask them the REAL questsion.
You are currently visiting website xyz, which is provided for free, supported by ads. Which of these options is true: a) I prefer xyz to remain free, even if it means advertising is displayed b) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, and would pay to access the website c) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, but would not visit the site if I had to pay
You don't seriously beleive 9/10 people would chose options b or c, do you?
Current services are only free to that subset of users who is not manipulated into making excessive purchases by advertising.
Well, if your entire premise is that advertising is only effective if it 'manipulates people into making excessive purchases', then I understand where you are coming from. Of course, I think that is an extremely faulty premise. Advertising does not have to make people make excessive purchases to be effective, it only has to persuade someone to choose their product instead of a competitor's. An ad that makes me think 'lets go to xyz for dinner tonight' is not making me make an excessive purchase, because I was going to buy dinner anyway, but is an effective ad nevertheless. And if I go to xyz and find I really like it and make it a regular stop then it was a very effective ad.
I would venture that far more excessive purchases are caused by peer pressure and direct interaction with people then happen because of ads on web pages.
Try reading and understanding what someone said before firing off an idiotic response.
The free web predates the commercial web. Yep, didn't say otherwise. What I said was a particular web site/service that a particular user wants to use, and which is currently ad-supported, will no longer exist for free if advertising can't pay the bills. The fact that other, different, free sites and services may exist does not change that fact. The fact that road-kill skunks are freely available does not negate people's desire for a nice juicy steak.
Because dead trees have no relevance to the modern world, and what little non-local coverage most of them carry, they buy from a syndication service anyway? And how are the syndication services going to exist when there is no-one to buy their services?
Google predates ad-sponsored Google. Not as a viable long-term entity it didn't. Google only existed ad-free (and losing money) long enough to build market share so the could convince advertisers that is was worth their money to advertise there. P&G also give away free samples of detergent, but that does not mean that just giving away free detergent is a viable long-term strategy.
You are truly an idiot if you think there is no such thing as a useful ad. Either that, or you have no clue what advertising actually is.
Another idiot AC (surprise, surprise) who can not read. I did not say sites need ADVERTISING revenue, I said they need revenue. Today, for many, many sites, that revenue comes in the form of advertising. Does it have to be that way? No, of course not. People can directly pay for access to services. At which point they are NO LONGER FREE. Which is exactly what I said.
Please tell me you're not naive enough to beleive that money saved by not advertising would be reflected in lower costs to the consumer. Any money saved by not advertising would go directly to profit, not in savings to you. So in addition to paying the SAME price for goods as you already do, you would also be paying to support previously ad-supported websites. That is a net economic loss to you, not a gain.
So I stand by my statement: current free services would no longer exist. If you are 'directly paying' for something it can not possibly be considered free, no matter how you try to twist words around.
1. They understand that the web sites and services they want need money to operate, and that money comes from ads. When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist. You know why newwpapers are dying - because they are losing their major source of revenue, ads. The same thing will happen with the web. How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?
He is not making a prediction on who WILL win the MVP. He is making a case for who he thinks SHOULD be the MVP, based on his analysis of statistics. However, the MVP is not awarded based on his analysis of statistics, it is awarded by a vote of the baseball writers, who may have different MVP criteria than he does.
In the presidential race he predicted who would (not should) win. Here he is saying who should (not will) win.
Exactly who 'entitled' Samsung to investigate jurors?
And no, they should not have to do that. They should not even be allowed to do that. There was no reason for Samsung to think that the juror was lying, unless you are prepared to say that ALL potential jurors in ALL potential cases should be considered liars, deserving off full background checks just because they MAY be called on to perform their civic duty.
They understand the 'modern world' perfectly well. They also understand things like 'exclusive contracts' and 'source of income'.
What the 'modern world' needs to learn is that just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing, or that doing that thing has no long-term negative effects. Yes, some idiot can tweet the entire play-by-play. But what do you think will happen to UW's basketball program when it no longer is a source of revenue (or loses even more money than it does now, if that is the case)?
What a pile of revisionist crap that is. IBM had called PCBs 'planars' (because, you know, they are made up of planes) for at least 20 years before there even was a 'pc'. As for 'hard drives' (which IBM invented), there is a damn good reason they called them 'fixed disks' - because they were fixed. 'Hard disk' was an ambiguous term to IBM because there were two types of hard disk - 'fixed', where the platters, heads, and actuators are one assembly, and 'removable', where the platters are not part of the head and actuator assembly.
So no, it was not IBM 'trying to control the discussion' or 'rename' anything, it was the PC industry trying to differentiate itself from boring old IBM that came up with the new (ambiguous and meaningless) terms.
I don't know what exactly you are trying to say. First of all, when a judge orders you to put some text on a web page and in print, and he gives you the text, that is meant to be taken quite literally. He wants that text, and only that text and not your marketing fluff, to be put on a web page and in print. Apple is free to put whatever nonsense that want on any other pages or in any other print ads, but they can not put it on the ordered page.
I also haven't a clue what you mean by the court writing the text defeats the purpose. The purpose is NOT (as many seem to think) to force Apple to issue an apology, show contrition or remorse, or admit wrongdoing or lying. The purpose is to inform the public, at Apple's expense, that there is no legal threat vis a vis Apple's designs hanging over Samsung products. The public can feel safe in buying those products.
And I really don't understand your little rant at the bottom. Nowhere did I defend what Apple did or imply that it was in any way OK.
Read the ruling. The judges (there are more than one) specifically say they can not and are not barring Apple from saying whatever they want, even the outright lies, as that would be prior restraint. What they ARE requiring is that they have a page which contains ONLY the required text and nothing else.
And quit calling this 'an apology'. It is not an apology in any sense of the word. Apple is being required to state a simple uncontestable fact, and nothing else. The text of the wording they are supposed to use is:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that [Samsung's] Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available from [link]
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18th October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available from [link]. There is no injunction in respect of the Community Registered Design in force anywhere in Europe.
If you were a potential juror, would you want such a thorough investigation (which you did not ask for or have any control over) on your life? And remember, the attorneys are officers of the court, so what you are really suggesting is that the government (court) thoroughly investigate you, just because you MIGHT be called on to perform your civic duty. No thanks.
I stand by what I said, although maybe I worded it poorly. I did not mean that the config he proposed was uncapable of doing work. I meant that the only way to achieve the speeds he is talking about is by doing no work (in other words, not benchmarking, just going by what the box says).
What I meant was, once you add in all the overhead of scheduling work, passing messages etc, you will find that you are running at a much slower speed than the raw speeds of the GPUs would have you believe. A GPU waiting for work, or memory access, or IO, or whatever is running at 0 FLOPS, regardless of how fast the processor is capable of running. If you can't keep those 4 GPUs running full speed doing actual work at all times, you have nothing near a 3 TFLOPS machine.
Except that 1999 supercomputer was capable of doing real work. You have 4 fast GPUs sitting in a box, doing nothing. What is feeding them work, coordinating their inputs/outputs, etc? That is where all the hard work is.
Based on that, I'd say 100% of your use is avoiding good security policies. Seriously, you log into your server, to perform admin functions, from systems you don't control? That is beyond stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
All of those companies, whether they are US companies or not, hold and benefit greatly from US patents.
Of course patents have not inspired any innovation in smart phones. That is why cell phones today still weigh several pounds, have an antenna you must pull out several inches, make analog voices calls, and do nothing else. Oh, let me guess, all the advances in batteries, processors, chip sizes, touch screens, displays, communications protocols, etc all was going to happen anyway, right?
Why would have have to disclose that? They never claimed that there was a usable port in there, or that the wireless card was user-replaceable, only that the laptop supported 802.11b/g/n. And it does indeed support as sold, just as they claimed. The consumer got exactly what they paid for. The fact that a particular consumer wants something OTHER than what he paid for does not constitute any kind of fraud on the manufacturers part.
Those are hardly the same. Replacement air filters pose zero liability to GM and Ford.
If you have a problem with your car, you are going to take it somewhere to get fixed. If the car is under warranty and the problem is NOT with your replacement filter, you pay nothing and the manufacturer pays the cost of repairs. If the problem turns out to be your replacement filter YOU must pay the cost of diagnosing and repairing that problem (and are not getting your car back until you do), and the manufacturer hos zero cost because of that problem.
On the other hand, if you buy a cheap computer (which these are) and replace a component and subsequently have a problem, you are going to call their support center (a direct cost to them). If the support center thinks it may be a warranty problem, they will pay for you to ship the computer for repair (another cost for them). Now they must diagnose the problem (more cost to them). If it turns out to be your replacement part that was the problem, now what? They could require you to pay for the original shipping cost, the original phone call, the cost of diagnostics, and the return shipping cost before they ship your PC back, but how many people are going to do that (remember, this was a cheap computer to start with)? Now they are stuck with a broken computer, in a configuration they don't support, that they can spend still more money on to get it back into a supported, working configuration, in hopes that MAYBE they can recoup their loses by selling it as a refurb.
Your replacement air filter results in no financial impact to Ford. Your replacement network card can easily eat up the entire profit of the box (and them some).
Bottom line: if you buy cheap, expect that ALL available measures have been taken to remove cost from that product. That includes support costs, and includes using any and all measures to keep those support costs to a minimum.
I guess it all depends on what you value. For me, I find the ability to go to MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and CNN without paying any one of them very appealing. If seeing ads is the price of that, then so be it. But I sure as hell would not buy any kind of subscription to either one, much less all three. Similarly, I like being able to read all the articles that slashdot summarizes. But would I PAY to be able to access all those articles? No way. Ad-supported web sites are giving me access to a MUCH wider array of information (including all those sites were you can get supposedly unbiased information) than I would otherwise be able (or willing) to afford. It costs me nothing at all to click on some article, even if just to see if it is spouting as much bullshit as claimed. Would I PAY for the opportunity to do that? No.
What you're complaining about is not lack of freedom, it is lack of fairness. As soon as fairness comes into the picture, freedom leaves (as ensuring fairness requires restricting freedom).
This is getting stupider and stupider. You make BETTER decisions in the absense of information? How the hell do you know that? And where, exactly, are you getting your 'unbiased' information? There is no such thing. How do you even know what products are available if you are totally immune to advertising? And don't say 'from other people', because THEY had to find out about the product from somewhere.
Yes, making any sort of major purchase based solely on advertising is stupid. No, going to a restaurant for dinner based on advertising is not stupid. And in either case, advertising at least serves as a trigger for you to know where to start your 'research'.
Nobody made the claim that most people want ads. Nice strawman.
What I said (and apparently alot of people can't grasp) is that IF people want stuff FOR FREE, then ads are a part of that equation.
So instead of asking if people would chose an advertisement free platform (what a stupid question), ask them the REAL questsion.
You are currently visiting website xyz, which is provided for free, supported by ads. Which of these options is true:
a) I prefer xyz to remain free, even if it means advertising is displayed
b) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, and would pay to access the website
c) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, but would not visit the site if I had to pay
You don't seriously beleive 9/10 people would chose options b or c, do you?
Current services are only free to that subset of users who is not manipulated into making excessive purchases by advertising.
Well, if your entire premise is that advertising is only effective if it 'manipulates people into making excessive purchases', then I understand where you are coming from. Of course, I think that is an extremely faulty premise. Advertising does not have to make people make excessive purchases to be effective, it only has to persuade someone to choose their product instead of a competitor's. An ad that makes me think 'lets go to xyz for dinner tonight' is not making me make an excessive purchase, because I was going to buy dinner anyway, but is an effective ad nevertheless. And if I go to xyz and find I really like it and make it a regular stop then it was a very effective ad.
I would venture that far more excessive purchases are caused by peer pressure and direct interaction with people then happen because of ads on web pages.
Try reading and understanding what someone said before firing off an idiotic response.
The free web predates the commercial web.
Yep, didn't say otherwise. What I said was a particular web site/service that a particular user wants to use, and which is currently ad-supported, will no longer exist for free if advertising can't pay the bills. The fact that other, different, free sites and services may exist does not change that fact. The fact that road-kill skunks are freely available does not negate people's desire for a nice juicy steak.
Because dead trees have no relevance to the modern world, and what little non-local coverage most of them carry, they buy from a syndication service anyway?
And how are the syndication services going to exist when there is no-one to buy their services?
Google predates ad-sponsored Google.
Not as a viable long-term entity it didn't. Google only existed ad-free (and losing money) long enough to build market share so the could convince advertisers that is was worth their money to advertise there. P&G also give away free samples of detergent, but that does not mean that just giving away free detergent is a viable long-term strategy.
You are truly an idiot if you think there is no such thing as a useful ad. Either that, or you have no clue what advertising actually is.
Another idiot AC (surprise, surprise) who can not read. I did not say sites need ADVERTISING revenue, I said they need revenue. Today, for many, many sites, that revenue comes in the form of advertising. Does it have to be that way? No, of course not. People can directly pay for access to services. At which point they are NO LONGER FREE. Which is exactly what I said.
Please tell me you're not naive enough to beleive that money saved by not advertising would be reflected in lower costs to the consumer. Any money saved by not advertising would go directly to profit, not in savings to you. So in addition to paying the SAME price for goods as you already do, you would also be paying to support previously ad-supported websites. That is a net economic loss to you, not a gain.
So I stand by my statement: current free services would no longer exist. If you are 'directly paying' for something it can not possibly be considered free, no matter how you try to twist words around.
1. They understand that the web sites and services they want need money to operate, and that money comes from ads. When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist. You know why newwpapers are dying - because they are losing their major source of revenue, ads. The same thing will happen with the web. How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?
2. They don't have a pathological fear of ads
3. They may find some ads actually useful
He is not making a prediction on who WILL win the MVP. He is making a case for who he thinks SHOULD be the MVP, based on his analysis of statistics. However, the MVP is not awarded based on his analysis of statistics, it is awarded by a vote of the baseball writers, who may have different MVP criteria than he does.
In the presidential race he predicted who would (not should) win. Here he is saying who should (not will) win.
Exactly who 'entitled' Samsung to investigate jurors?
And no, they should not have to do that. They should not even be allowed to do that. There was no reason for Samsung to think that the juror was lying, unless you are prepared to say that ALL potential jurors in ALL potential cases should be considered liars, deserving off full background checks just because they MAY be called on to perform their civic duty.
They understand the 'modern world' perfectly well. They also understand things like 'exclusive contracts' and 'source of income'.
What the 'modern world' needs to learn is that just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is right to do that thing, or that doing that thing has no long-term negative effects. Yes, some idiot can tweet the entire play-by-play. But what do you think will happen to UW's basketball program when it no longer is a source of revenue (or loses even more money than it does now, if that is the case)?
What a pile of revisionist crap that is. IBM had called PCBs 'planars' (because, you know, they are made up of planes) for at least 20 years before there even was a 'pc'. As for 'hard drives' (which IBM invented), there is a damn good reason they called them 'fixed disks' - because they were fixed. 'Hard disk' was an ambiguous term to IBM because there were two types of hard disk - 'fixed', where the platters, heads, and actuators are one assembly, and 'removable', where the platters are not part of the head and actuator assembly.
So no, it was not IBM 'trying to control the discussion' or 'rename' anything, it was the PC industry trying to differentiate itself from boring old IBM that came up with the new (ambiguous and meaningless) terms.
I don't know what exactly you are trying to say. First of all, when a judge orders you to put some text on a web page and in print, and he gives you the text, that is meant to be taken quite literally. He wants that text, and only that text and not your marketing fluff, to be put on a web page and in print. Apple is free to put whatever nonsense that want on any other pages or in any other print ads, but they can not put it on the ordered page.
I also haven't a clue what you mean by the court writing the text defeats the purpose. The purpose is NOT (as many seem to think) to force Apple to issue an apology, show contrition or remorse, or admit wrongdoing or lying. The purpose is to inform the public, at Apple's expense, that there is no legal threat vis a vis Apple's designs hanging over Samsung products. The public can feel safe in buying those products.
And I really don't understand your little rant at the bottom. Nowhere did I defend what Apple did or imply that it was in any way OK.
Read the ruling. The judges (there are more than one) specifically say they can not and are not barring Apple from saying whatever they want, even the outright lies, as that would be prior restraint. What they ARE requiring is that they have a page which contains ONLY the required text and nothing else.
And quit calling this 'an apology'. It is not an apology in any sense of the word. Apple is being required to state a simple uncontestable fact, and nothing else. The text of the wording they are supposed to use is:
On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that [Samsung's] Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's Community registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available from [link]
That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 18th October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available from [link]. There is no injunction in respect of the Community Registered Design in force anywhere in Europe.
If you were a potential juror, would you want such a thorough investigation (which you did not ask for or have any control over) on your life? And remember, the attorneys are officers of the court, so what you are really suggesting is that the government (court) thoroughly investigate you, just because you MIGHT be called on to perform your civic duty. No thanks.
I stand by what I said, although maybe I worded it poorly. I did not mean that the config he proposed was uncapable of doing work. I meant that the only way to achieve the speeds he is talking about is by doing no work (in other words, not benchmarking, just going by what the box says).
What I meant was, once you add in all the overhead of scheduling work, passing messages etc, you will find that you are running at a much slower speed than the raw speeds of the GPUs would have you believe. A GPU waiting for work, or memory access, or IO, or whatever is running at 0 FLOPS, regardless of how fast the processor is capable of running. If you can't keep those 4 GPUs running full speed doing actual work at all times, you have nothing near a 3 TFLOPS machine.
Except that 1999 supercomputer was capable of doing real work. You have 4 fast GPUs sitting in a box, doing nothing. What is feeding them work, coordinating their inputs/outputs, etc? That is where all the hard work is.
IBM is a has-been of technology companies? Do tell.
Based on that, I'd say 100% of your use is avoiding good security policies. Seriously, you log into your server, to perform admin functions, from systems you don't control? That is beyond stupid.