Anarchy isn't possible and has never existed outside of imagination. Too many people crave someone giving them limits. Fortunately for the people who like limiting others, I guess. Lots of them as well.
Same fate as every other ideal, basically. Reality shrugs them off as cute.
These are my very favorite kind of articles, because the comments are always gold. It's so much fun to read the prognostications of people who spend energy to stay as far away from the mainstream as possible declaring that because a given product doesn't meet their every esoteric use, it has no legitimate purpose.
Anyone who labors under the delusion that nerds are smart just needs to spend some time on this site.
Apple does do more with its business than a phone, you know. Arguably they don't even really do phones, they just happened to graft a telephony stack onto a very advanced PMP.
All of which is to say that what Nokia does as a core business is just one thing Apple does overall, making direct comparisons even more nebulous.
I still say Nokia was in the right initially, although their price might be unreasonable from Apple's perspective.
Nokia has more employees, but Apple makes more money. Nokia sells tons more phones, but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines. Overall, Apple looks to be in better shape. It's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors. Seems like Apple is healthier in general, although Nokia is "bigger" for whatever that means.
Looking at valuation, Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to, but that's not in the least bit likely. Apple's not big into the low end.
So far as the story goes, obviously this is just negotiation tactics.
What surprises me is that Apple is responsible for licensing the radio patents. It's not like they build the radios, they just buy them and integrate them. Seems like Broadcom or whoever they use as the radio vendor would have to handle that. I don't know the details of the case, though, so I'm really just talking out my ass here.
Overall I'd say they should suck it up and license the damn things, even though Nokia wants those precious multitouch patents. It's pretty clear Apple is infringing.
Actually, being rewarded for being the first to come up with something is what patents are all about. I'm sure you knew that and you were just begging the question, but one can never tell around here. Slashdot is rife with misunderstanding and people who honestly believe that everything someone else did is easy and obvious, as ridiculous as that point of view is.
Not that this is the most authoritative source I can imagine, but according to http://www.onlineeducation.net/porn/ Utah has the highest per-capita consumption of porn. I think things dovetailed nicely in my random browsing today.
At least you consistently apply the distraction technique. It won't win you many arguments against opponents with more than 2 brain cells, but I think that makes you safe on the Internet.
You missed an important point - The Slashdot community leans so far towards believing all patents are useless that it's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong. It's not about (rather rare) pointless patent trolls at all. It's the rabid reactions of idealists who want everything to be free.
Was it ordinary when it was done for the very first time? Just because it's obvious now, after becoming commonplace, doesn't mean it wasn't a big leap for the person who came up with it. I can assume that wasn't you, even if you could tell us a story about how you dreamed that your camera could do that at some point when you were 4 years old so it must totally be obvious and not worthy or patenting.
I don't understand the aversion to software patents. Seems like, since software is even easier to copy, it is more deserving of protection.
I should clarify - I do understand the aversion, it comes from the whole "I want other people's work to be free" ethic that permeates this and other communities. I don't get why it's a valid principle may be what I should have said.
If we go with your take on it, everything under the sun is paid by the taxpayer eventually. Calling the charge for a private company's service a payment by the taxpayer is just plain disingenuous, particularly considering that the rates are artificially deflated by regulation (not saying this is a bad thing.)
So far as tax credits equating into a cost, this is ideologically the same as a media company equating pirated copies as lost sales. Care to actually start that argument?
Slashdot Mirror
Anarchy isn't possible and has never existed outside of imagination. Too many people crave someone giving them limits. Fortunately for the people who like limiting others, I guess. Lots of them as well.
Same fate as every other ideal, basically. Reality shrugs them off as cute.
Some people like to reach for the top. Other people would like the top to be brought closer. I won't speculate as to reasons in either case.
Well, it's the only one that calls itself the only one.
These are my very favorite kind of articles, because the comments are always gold. It's so much fun to read the prognostications of people who spend energy to stay as far away from the mainstream as possible declaring that because a given product doesn't meet their every esoteric use, it has no legitimate purpose.
Anyone who labors under the delusion that nerds are smart just needs to spend some time on this site.
Since this is about California, what does UK law have to do with anything? There is a topic here, you know.
Apple does do more with its business than a phone, you know. Arguably they don't even really do phones, they just happened to graft a telephony stack onto a very advanced PMP.
All of which is to say that what Nokia does as a core business is just one thing Apple does overall, making direct comparisons even more nebulous.
I still say Nokia was in the right initially, although their price might be unreasonable from Apple's perspective.
I thought you guys were had a right to bare arms, what is the difference between a shot gun and a jet?
Jets fly high up in the cold air, so you need long sleeves.
Nokia has more employees, but Apple makes more money. Nokia sells tons more phones, but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines. Overall, Apple looks to be in better shape. It's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors. Seems like Apple is healthier in general, although Nokia is "bigger" for whatever that means.
Looking at valuation, Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to, but that's not in the least bit likely. Apple's not big into the low end.
So far as the story goes, obviously this is just negotiation tactics.
What surprises me is that Apple is responsible for licensing the radio patents. It's not like they build the radios, they just buy them and integrate them. Seems like Broadcom or whoever they use as the radio vendor would have to handle that. I don't know the details of the case, though, so I'm really just talking out my ass here.
Overall I'd say they should suck it up and license the damn things, even though Nokia wants those precious multitouch patents. It's pretty clear Apple is infringing.
Actually, being rewarded for being the first to come up with something is what patents are all about. I'm sure you knew that and you were just begging the question, but one can never tell around here. Slashdot is rife with misunderstanding and people who honestly believe that everything someone else did is easy and obvious, as ridiculous as that point of view is.
You could stumble on these things now, certainly. Somebody already put in the hard work to make them possible, then easy.
The second time you do something, it's obvious. The first time, not so much. Antipatent people seem to forget that.
Not that this is the most authoritative source I can imagine, but according to http://www.onlineeducation.net/porn/ Utah has the highest per-capita consumption of porn. I think things dovetailed nicely in my random browsing today.
That makes it harder for the insecure foreign types to casually bash the US. Won't you think of their needs?
But the boomers are retiring now.
Or maybe you're silly enough to think they don't have that attitude in spite of decades of evidence.
At least you consistently apply the distraction technique. It won't win you many arguments against opponents with more than 2 brain cells, but I think that makes you safe on the Internet.
I HATE corporate life but in this economy, there's not much of a choice.
There is always a choice, unless you want things handed to you. Then you get what you get.
You missed an important point - The Slashdot community leans so far towards believing all patents are useless that it's virtually assumed anyone suing over a patent is wrong. It's not about (rather rare) pointless patent trolls at all. It's the rabid reactions of idealists who want everything to be free.
Was it ordinary when it was done for the very first time? Just because it's obvious now, after becoming commonplace, doesn't mean it wasn't a big leap for the person who came up with it. I can assume that wasn't you, even if you could tell us a story about how you dreamed that your camera could do that at some point when you were 4 years old so it must totally be obvious and not worthy or patenting.
I don't understand the aversion to software patents. Seems like, since software is even easier to copy, it is more deserving of protection.
I should clarify - I do understand the aversion, it comes from the whole "I want other people's work to be free" ethic that permeates this and other communities. I don't get why it's a valid principle may be what I should have said.
It makes the jesushumpers feel oppressed.
Only the dudes in dinghies say that.
Do you have a reason that life can only take the form familiar to us?
Since there is no evidence one way or the other, any position is wishful thinking.
I suspect they were just dumbing down all the overheads of using encryption into one catchall sentence.
I think ultimately by the time I reach 80, some of the tech in Minority Report should be existant.
Hell, most of it is here now. Unless you're in your 70s, I'd expect it to be obsolete by the time you're 80.
If we go with your take on it, everything under the sun is paid by the taxpayer eventually. Calling the charge for a private company's service a payment by the taxpayer is just plain disingenuous, particularly considering that the rates are artificially deflated by regulation (not saying this is a bad thing.)
So far as tax credits equating into a cost, this is ideologically the same as a media company equating pirated copies as lost sales. Care to actually start that argument?