"Rounded corners" does not appear in the claim list at all
Except in the diagram... Which is the patent.
One could create a new device whose corners were a different radius and it wouldn't infringe.
So this is a patent on rounded corners on a rectangle? How big of a difference in radius is needed so as not to be infringing? is half a milimetre enough?
the Samsung trial used much more complete patented renderings,
This patent wasn't actually granted until after the infamous trial. The patents used there included rounded corners and industry standard positions of things like buttons and icons. Not that any of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. You said Apple does not have a patent on rounded corners. They do; it's right there.
My answer is: Apple doesn't have a design patent on rounded corners and never claimed to have one
D670,286. Dotted lines are not part of the claimed patent. The only solid lines in that patent are: 1 rectangle with rounded corners. 1 rectangle inside the rounded one for the screen.
In their defense a screen is more than just a piece of glass. My phone has had curved glass for quite a few years already but a flat screen.
I never thought curving a screen to be that difficult though. I always understood they were quite flimsy and held in place to protect from damage. That we've always held them flat and not curved had less to do with one being difficult and more to do with "why the hell would I want a curved display?"
How can a flawed metric bring struggling students to the surface? Particularly struggling students that the teacher couldn't already identify as struggling?
Because it can flag them for further attention. Which is what the current metric, grades, is used for. How do you think the teacher is identifying them as struggling? They are using some form of personally-defined metrics. What happens when a teacher uses whatever their personal bias is to define when a student is struggling? "Girls can't do math therefore you are struggling". Teachers have used that metric in the past so I guess we can't leave the judgement up to them. Putting researching into better finding struggling students and why they're struggling is a very good thing. That you think "metrics" is a dirty word doesn't change that. We could argue strawmen all day but it won't accomplish anything.
What detrimental effects will it have when it mis-identifies an adequate student as struggling? How about if it mis-identifies the reason the student is struggling?
None! On additional scrutiny it can be determined if they were falsely flagged or not. Who cares if it misidentifies 1 student out of 10 million. It won't harm them in any way. The hundreds of thousands of dyslexic students in that sample will certainly benefit from it though. Now they can get additional help instead of struggling and probably flunking out.
Perhaps so but we have already universally agreed that metrics are useful and even needed in education. Should we freeze what we currently use as "the one true metric" or do we try to experiment with new ways and supplant it? I suppose we could just never try to gauge a pupil's apprehension of their lessons but I doubt you would agree that would make a good educational method.
A bureaucracy will misuse anything it can. I don't think we should let bureaucracies ruin things for us. There is nothing they excel at more than perverting good ideas.
Maybe you should give some reasons why it is so bad all the while it is being used quite successfully in many places. That way the rest of us can have a nice laugh at you.
It could be changed to "Learn the underlying structure". For example if you program in.net, how does.net execute your code?
Programming assembly languages and hardware will not teach you how.NET is executed. If you learnt the intricacies of.NET/C# execution path, virtual machine or optimizations you are almost certainly now out of the pay-grade of a.NET developer.
Modern high level compilers are very complicated and beyond "cursory" understanding. They are a specialisation. Understanding their basics is not a harmful skill but it will not help you optimise your code in any meaningful sense in a high level environment.
What exactly are you measuring? If the underlying model that you're using to map performance to performance metrics is wrong, then the resulting metrics are worthless at best.
That is just not true. At the very least it can help to bring (some) struggling students to the surface. I'm not sure many people would consider that useless.
It also does not answer the request of why these things can never be useful.
If we demand full human-spectrum coverage of everything we do then we will never accomplish anything. If we don't experiment with metrics and measuring intelligence/performance we will never improve our theories/metrics/understanding/education techniques. We already map performance-to-performance; we call them "grades". Experimenting with ways to improve this system is a good thing.
Quantizable and meaningfully quantizable are both beside the points of usefully quantizable, and useful to whom.
Definitely not true. If something can be meaningfully quantised then that data is most definitely useful in some context.
I am not saying we can hope to get a full picture with these shallow attempts at metrics but there absolutely is useful data to be gained from them. If you score below your peers in something (no matter how it's measured) there is a reason to look into why. Is the metric flawed? Improve it with new data. Is there a learning disability? Work with it. Is it simple lack of time spent? Spend more time with it.
Outlier data points are not a reason to completely disregard metrics. That it doesn't work for a couple people does not mean it cannot be useful to millions.
Clever quips are not an argument. Please provide some reasoning why educational performance or intelligence cannot be meaningfully quantised in some way or another. Or why doing so is always completely useless.
For instance- I could rate your English proficiency as "need improvement" based on use of wrong words and comma splices. Comparing this to others I could probably come up with a numerical relation with you to your peers. With that data I could recommend you spending more time on grammar / writing if you seemed to fall below others in that area. Seems pretty useful and doable to me.
It would be more correct to say that Java doesn't support Android.
Why would I try to run Android in Java? Stop being obtusely pedantic. Nobody would say "Java doesn't support Android" when what they mean is "Android doesn't support execution of Java programs".
To continue your infantile example you are forgetting about the group of people with a large dick having larger success with women than those with small. Now there is some evidence to say "buddy's giant dick might have helped with the ladies".
To put succinctly: this is not a sample of one. This is a datum in a sample.
Basically, you have two options to explain the fact that the universe exists at all. 1) It is a big perpetual motion machine. 2) Magic. Option 2 is a far extraordinary claim than option 1.
Probably a few more options than that. Especially considering the current "most commonly accepted" (to the best of my knowledge) theory as the fate of the universe is heat death. That does not sound very perpetual to me..
Bad sentence structure, repetitive and unimaginative insults, obvious falsehoods or brazen misunderstanding of words, and obnoxious and confrontational prose.
Troll rating: 2/10. You are either a pretty lame troll or just not as clever as you believe yourself to be.
I wasn't aware you ever actually made a cogent point. You never actually made a point worth disagreeing with. Just some nonsense about "welfare leftists", marxism and keynesianism. That's why you've been labelled a troll; you are by definition. The only one that seems to be crying here is you.
Okay, so the gap is a bit bigger than I remembered, but it's still in a similar ballpark.
Ignoring the fact that a JavaScript benchmark isn't that useful in comparing gaming performance we still have one of the most modern and most expensive ARM chips having 60% less performance than one of the cheapest and weakest modern x86 chips. I'm not sure you can count that as ARM being in a similar ballpark as x86.
Is Battlefield 3 [androidandme.com] on Tegra 5 capable enough for you?
If that video was any indication? Absolutely not. If Valve released a flagship Half Life 3 that looked like that no one would ever take them seriously again. Low poly environments, no anti-aliasing. Sorry but that's quite a few years old in x86 gaming. Great on a tablet but it just does not hold a candle to what x86 is capable of right now.
The issue is not "can ARM play games"; clearly it can. The issue is "can ARM compete with x86 in the gaming realm". And at present and the foreseeable future the answer to that is a resounding "No".
Slashdot Mirror
I'd happily pay 99 cents for an unencumbered 720p or 1080p mkv file for a great many shows. Unfortunately (for them) I can't.
FlopEJoe's enjoyment of the distinguishing features between sexes? He probably doesn't have to assume on that.
You seem to be assuming that homosexuality is a modern phenomenon. Unless I read that totally wrong?
"Rounded corners" does not appear in the claim list at all
Except in the diagram... Which is the patent.
One could create a new device whose corners were a different radius and it wouldn't infringe.
So this is a patent on rounded corners on a rectangle? How big of a difference in radius is needed so as not to be infringing? is half a milimetre enough?
the Samsung trial used much more complete patented renderings,
This patent wasn't actually granted until after the infamous trial. The patents used there included rounded corners and industry standard positions of things like buttons and icons. Not that any of that has anything to do with the topic at hand. You said Apple does not have a patent on rounded corners. They do; it's right there.
My answer is: Apple doesn't have a design patent on rounded corners and never claimed to have one
D670,286. Dotted lines are not part of the claimed patent. The only solid lines in that patent are: 1 rectangle with rounded corners. 1 rectangle inside the rounded one for the screen.
In their defense a screen is more than just a piece of glass. My phone has had curved glass for quite a few years already but a flat screen.
I never thought curving a screen to be that difficult though. I always understood they were quite flimsy and held in place to protect from damage. That we've always held them flat and not curved had less to do with one being difficult and more to do with "why the hell would I want a curved display?"
How can a flawed metric bring struggling students to the surface? Particularly struggling students that the teacher couldn't already identify as struggling?
Because it can flag them for further attention. Which is what the current metric, grades, is used for. How do you think the teacher is identifying them as struggling? They are using some form of personally-defined metrics. What happens when a teacher uses whatever their personal bias is to define when a student is struggling? "Girls can't do math therefore you are struggling". Teachers have used that metric in the past so I guess we can't leave the judgement up to them. Putting researching into better finding struggling students and why they're struggling is a very good thing. That you think "metrics" is a dirty word doesn't change that. We could argue strawmen all day but it won't accomplish anything.
What detrimental effects will it have when it mis-identifies an adequate student as struggling? How about if it mis-identifies the reason the student is struggling?
None! On additional scrutiny it can be determined if they were falsely flagged or not. Who cares if it misidentifies 1 student out of 10 million. It won't harm them in any way. The hundreds of thousands of dyslexic students in that sample will certainly benefit from it though. Now they can get additional help instead of struggling and probably flunking out.
Perhaps so but we have already universally agreed that metrics are useful and even needed in education. Should we freeze what we currently use as "the one true metric" or do we try to experiment with new ways and supplant it? I suppose we could just never try to gauge a pupil's apprehension of their lessons but I doubt you would agree that would make a good educational method.
A bureaucracy will misuse anything it can. I don't think we should let bureaucracies ruin things for us. There is nothing they excel at more than perverting good ideas.
Maybe you should give some reasons why it is so bad all the while it is being used quite successfully in many places. That way the rest of us can have a nice laugh at you.
It could be changed to "Learn the underlying structure". For example if you program in .net, how does .net execute your code?
Programming assembly languages and hardware will not teach you how .NET is executed. If you learnt the intricacies of .NET/C# execution path, virtual machine or optimizations you are almost certainly now out of the pay-grade of a .NET developer.
Modern high level compilers are very complicated and beyond "cursory" understanding. They are a specialisation. Understanding their basics is not a harmful skill but it will not help you optimise your code in any meaningful sense in a high level environment.
What exactly are you measuring? If the underlying model that you're using to map performance to performance metrics is wrong, then the resulting metrics are worthless at best.
That is just not true. At the very least it can help to bring (some) struggling students to the surface. I'm not sure many people would consider that useless.
It also does not answer the request of why these things can never be useful.
If we demand full human-spectrum coverage of everything we do then we will never accomplish anything. If we don't experiment with metrics and measuring intelligence/performance we will never improve our theories/metrics/understanding/education techniques. We already map performance-to-performance; we call them "grades". Experimenting with ways to improve this system is a good thing.
Quantizable and meaningfully quantizable are both beside the points of usefully quantizable, and useful to whom.
Definitely not true. If something can be meaningfully quantised then that data is most definitely useful in some context.
I am not saying we can hope to get a full picture with these shallow attempts at metrics but there absolutely is useful data to be gained from them. If you score below your peers in something (no matter how it's measured) there is a reason to look into why. Is the metric flawed? Improve it with new data. Is there a learning disability? Work with it. Is it simple lack of time spent? Spend more time with it.
Outlier data points are not a reason to completely disregard metrics. That it doesn't work for a couple people does not mean it cannot be useful to millions.
Corporations do not have SWAT teams
Tell that to Jason Chen.
Clever quips are not an argument. Please provide some reasoning why educational performance or intelligence cannot be meaningfully quantised in some way or another. Or why doing so is always completely useless.
For instance- I could rate your English proficiency as "need improvement" based on use of wrong words and comma splices. Comparing this to others I could probably come up with a numerical relation with you to your peers. With that data I could recommend you spending more time on grammar / writing if you seemed to fall below others in that area. Seems pretty useful and doable to me.
It would be more correct to say that Java doesn't support Android.
Why would I try to run Android in Java? Stop being obtusely pedantic. Nobody would say "Java doesn't support Android" when what they mean is "Android doesn't support execution of Java programs".
To continue your infantile example you are forgetting about the group of people with a large dick having larger success with women than those with small. Now there is some evidence to say "buddy's giant dick might have helped with the ladies".
To put succinctly: this is not a sample of one. This is a datum in a sample.
Basically, you have two options to explain the fact that the universe exists at all. 1) It is a big perpetual motion machine. 2) Magic. Option 2 is a far extraordinary claim than option 1.
Probably a few more options than that. Especially considering the current "most commonly accepted" (to the best of my knowledge) theory as the fate of the universe is heat death. That does not sound very perpetual to me..
Bad sentence structure, repetitive and unimaginative insults, obvious falsehoods or brazen misunderstanding of words, and obnoxious and confrontational prose.
Troll rating: 2/10. You are either a pretty lame troll or just not as clever as you believe yourself to be.
Personally, I can't wait until the GPU goes the way of the math coprocessor.
Probably shouldn't hold your breath on that...
I wasn't aware you ever actually made a cogent point. You never actually made a point worth disagreeing with. Just some nonsense about "welfare leftists", marxism and keynesianism. That's why you've been labelled a troll; you are by definition. The only one that seems to be crying here is you.
Oh lets stop the melodramatic crap.
Agreed! Let's start by having trolls like you stop spouting nonsense like:
US is slowly but surely becoming a Leftist Welfare State
You complete disregard that many eyes make all bugs shallow.
Probably because that is entirely false.
Okay, so the gap is a bit bigger than I remembered, but it's still in a similar ballpark.
Ignoring the fact that a JavaScript benchmark isn't that useful in comparing gaming performance we still have one of the most modern and most expensive ARM chips having 60% less performance than one of the cheapest and weakest modern x86 chips. I'm not sure you can count that as ARM being in a similar ballpark as x86.
Is Battlefield 3 [androidandme.com] on Tegra 5 capable enough for you?
If that video was any indication? Absolutely not. If Valve released a flagship Half Life 3 that looked like that no one would ever take them seriously again. Low poly environments, no anti-aliasing. Sorry but that's quite a few years old in x86 gaming. Great on a tablet but it just does not hold a candle to what x86 is capable of right now.
The issue is not "can ARM play games"; clearly it can. The issue is "can ARM compete with x86 in the gaming realm". And at present and the foreseeable future the answer to that is a resounding "No".
Except the one that does and then posts the results to the Internet thus negating the entire purpose of the DRM to begin with.
No. Once their foot is in the door they will start demanding signed binary for browsers since anything else is useless to their wants.