One of the first IT jobs I ever had was working for an IT manager... He couldn't solve a computer problem to save his life. That didn't matter, because he just hired competent underlings to do that work.
And that is the EXACT purpose of a manager. One of my recent managers was very similar to this guy - and probably the best manager I have ever worked for. He didn't know didly squat about the technologies we use, couldn't write a SQL statement to select 1 from dual, but he freely admitted to it on day one. He went to all the senior management meetings as prepared as he could be. If he didn't have an answer, he asked us after the meeting and then followed up with our recommendations. The senior management team loved his work because they were getting real answers and our team worked very efficiently. We enjoyed working within his team because he was always on top of things, had a well organized plan for our work - but most of all because he interjected himself between any business user and us when they came bearing work or requests.
Our teams profile rose greatly because we were able to provide a LOT more work to the rest of them due to this single manager. Sadly for us though, he has moved on to bigger and better things (though good for him) and our team is now being led by three managers who combined are no-where near as good as him. Shame really.
Sounds like a perfect one off opportunity for Mexico to take advantage and make some wonderful tourist dollars off an event they are not going to have again. I wouldn't have ever thought of using this event as a way to get tourists into a country, but hey, with all the TV shows about it constantly being shown, I guess it was only a matter of time before ads started screening during them saying "Hey, come to this place for when the nworld ends!".
Because they might have an idea that uses a domain called RightHaven? Perhaps a RPG game, perhaps a software application for big business. Who cares - as long as the company is getting gutted to pay for the money it has to cover.
Having said that, I am personally much more interested in finding out whether once the IP within that shell of a shell company runs out and the money is still missing, whether Big Media will be covering the shortfall as they were clearly setting the operation up as a source of income. Surely they will be held liable for the shortfall? Can I get this as a late Christmas present from the US justice system?
The interesting thing to me is that on a photo there would be obvious "points of interest". If you had a picture of a few friends, you would likely use their faces as touch points. If you had a picture of a hillside with some houses, those would likely be the points that get touched. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of this rather novel password concept, but I think that in terms of security (at least for the most part) that any photo would have obvious points that narrow down the possibilities.
I am pretty sure that for now, they are getting 1% with what they have, but are expecting a much better result with more development. Meaning that it will outperform copper oxide further down the track.
Why target torrent and P2P sites, and completely disregard sites like this which sell illegal content downloaded straight over HTTP?
Because more people will go and try to find the free ones. If a free site has a hundred users and the paying one has two users, even though the paying one is technically doing "more illegal stuff" these lists will target the highest number of users first.
This isn't about stopping anyone breaking any laws or the like - this is about trying to stop access to content that Big Media is trying to sell.
I love how these two sites made it into the list. They are claimed to be selling "circumvention devices and components used to circumvent technological protection measures on consoles". If they are openly selling these things, I am assuming it is legal in Canada to do so - showing a lovely attitude of "If we call it illegal, it is illegal everywhere in the entire world!" from American "rightholders".
Also, that must have been from the Rightholder Group Dept of Redundancy Right Holder Group.
-/.er's still whinging about Freedoms. - Smart Australians order games from overseas regardless (thank you parallel importing).
So on one hand you say that/.er's will be whining about Freedoms, but at the same time you say that the people who break a law (being importing of in this case illegal goods - which is what a US/UK copy would be) by ordering it in another country and circumnavigating this law are smart?
So smart and dumb Australians both disagree with the censorship here, the stupid ones try to bring attention to the matter and perhaps get the censorship issues with games resolved by politicians - but the smart ones import goods outside the law?
You had me for a few points, but then you lost me.
There is a great video on the Hubble site that you can view that goes into exactly what goes into a hubble picture and explains the whole concept of colors and the like in it.
So, the Iranians admit to spoofing GPS positions and this *isn't* used as an excuse to say 'the Iranians tricked it into crossing the border'? Color me impressed.
When Coke originally changed the recipe and then had to do a LOT of backpedalling to restore the original flavour (and get the sales back), the CEO made a wonderful comment on the whole thing. People were accusing Coca Cola of doing this on purpose to drive sales. Keough answered this speculation by saying "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart".
I think this can very much also apply to this situation. The US government wasn't dumb enough to openly admit to spying and the like, but they weren't smart enough to concoct your excuse before the cat was out of the bag.
An interesting thing though, is that the Chinese mainly use Silver Iodide Rockets to seed the clouds. Silver Iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and a toxic pollutant by the US. Exposure can result in the following:
Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache, irritation of the mucous membranes, weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression. Chronic inhalation, ingestion or skin contact with silver compounds may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes.
Will be interesting to see what happens during the next ten to fifteen years after this has been in place for long enough to really get into the soil, the food chain and the poor saps who this rain falls on.
You will be arriving at the Moon Base in 3 hours forty five minutes... You will be arriving at the Moon Base in two minutes... You will be arriving at the Moon Base in six days and twenty three hours... You will be arriving at the Moon Base in calculating... You will be.... ... ... . . .
What concerns me most is that there are enough of these rulings being made at the moment to suggest that all the large technology houses are simply stealing each other's technology on the basis of saying 'prove that I stole it'.
The other logical reason for this that you may not have considered is simply that the patents that are being awarded/approved are merely logical next steps in evolution of the technology. I think that is the main reason of why so many of us/.'ers get cranky with the patent system. So many patents are awarded (and then used to sue others) that are merely logical extensions of a current idea/technology that they should NEVER be patentable.
A good example is this patent awarded to Apple. When you have a touchscreen that you can input data with a finger, surely the idea to have the screen scroll by moving your finger along the screen and zoom in and out by moving two fingers closer or further apart is obvious. It is an INPUT device. To have those sort of simple gestures is the logical, blatantly obvious, anyone can think of it idea possible.
I wouldn't agree that novel punishments are needed by judges - I would say that less* patents like this should be granted.
Another very important aspect of Celtic ritual warfare at this time was single combat. To settle a dispute and measure one's prowess, it was customary to challenge an individual warrior from the other army to ritual single combat to the death while cheered on by the opposing hosts. Such fights were common before pitched battle, and for ritual purposes tended to occur at river fords. For examples of this behavior, one can read the epic literature of Ireland, such as the Ulster Cycle and Fenian Cycle, as well as accounts of Gaelic wars such as the "Wars of the Gael with the Foreigners" and Geoffrey Keating's "History of Ireland.
Ritual Combat would later manifest itself in the duel, as seen in the Scottish Martial Arts of the 18th century. The victor was determined by who made the first-cut. However, this was not always observed, and at times the duel would continue to the death.
"You there! Lawyer with the brown briefcase, I pick YOU for combat. Prepare yourself!"
Indeed, the first thing I wondered was if they have a method to seek damages or if it falls under some law that gives the government immunity against lawsuits where they plain get it wrong - like here.
But that is the exact sort of character that democratic systems allow into power. The world wide, elections are won by those who are charasmatic, say the right things on camera and during conferences - then once they are in office, all of their "true" goals come to light as they try to keep themselves in power. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but have a look at this democratic election in 1932 and have a look at how people were misguided into who and what they voted for.
They wrote the laws, gave themselves an exemption, and have better access to law enforcement and legal advice than you or I.
While I agree that they have better access to legal advice, if you really did want to stick it to the man, your country still has courts that may stick to the letter of the law, but juries generally vote with common sense and a sense of justice. I would be very very surprised if the found someone guilty of robocalling the same candidate that robocalled them. If you filed for costs right at the start, you would likely get off free minus your time in court. The deck might be stacked in their favour, but a jury would likely even that out quick smart. Remember, that jury is probably getting the same annoying robocalls from the same politician.
If you really wanted to stick it to the man, make sure that it was taken to court and you won. Court rulings have a beautiful way of sticking around.
To your example, Apple, in your Ford Scenario, would not be out there suing every manufacturer of a vehicle that relied on a gas engine and had four wheels. They would, though, take the manufacturer of a vehicle that, from every angle viewed, would pass for a Mustang to a casual observer.
This comparison of five tablets (Samsung Galaxy, and Galaxy 2, the Xoom, Playbook and iPad2) really shows in my opinion that there are certain things that every tablet will have: 1) Minimal design - something neat, something clean where the touch screen is the focal point. 2) Some sort of border around the screen - which is due to engineering constraints. 3) Will probably have rounded corners. (My monitor has rounded corners, so does my laptop, so did the ruler that I had in primary school.
To say that the Galaxy Tab 2 from every angle viewed, would pass for a [iPad2] to a casual observer is a stretch. To a casual observer any of those devices could be mistaken for any other. To a casual observer, a HP laptop could be mistaken as a Dell and vice-versa.
I'd say the case design should be copyrighted or trademarked, but we all know how most slash dotters feel about copyrights..:)
You can't trademark something that in itself is so broad - that's the whole point of most of the people that you seem to think are attacking Apple here. No company should be allowed to make a tablet (and have a design trademarked) that says "Screen, small border, rounded corners, one button" and stop anyone else making a tablet that had a screen, small border, rounded corners and a single button. Don't paint with such a broad brush. Would I support Apple if Samsung was putting an Apple logo on their tablet? Absolutely. They aren't. Apple generally uses a minimalist approach to presenting their products visually. That's fine, a lot of people like a clean, simple, minimalist approach. However, they cannot stop others using a minimalist approach.
Lastly, when Apple pulls this sort of shit it really makes it hard for someone like me to try to be understanding towards them in this case.
If you're referring to the IBM PC, Apple was there first.
So just because you are the first in a field, you agree that no-one else can make anything in that field?
Just to/. this up a bit, how come there are so many brands of cars out there? Would you support Ford if they took anyone making a "engine powered vehicle, with room for two or more persons moving under it's own volition and comprising of four or more wheels, a steering device, optional room for belongings (referred to henceforth as a boot or trunk) and with interior seats for the persons travelling" to court claiming that they had patents for it?
Patents are supposed to be there to protect the inventor of a new idea, to allow them to market and make money off their new invention. Making an existing idea/product neater, giving it a pleasing case/housing and rounded corners should not be a patentable market distinction.
I am not totally blaming Apple for this however (though I do think this whole saga just reeks of nerd rage with a dash of angry Cartman tantrum voice thrown in). Apple seems to be playing inside the sandpit that the patent system has created - though it certainly appears that it is trying to push the limits of the sandpit as far as it can get away with. It isn't playing nice, but it (depending on the outcome of this case) may be playing within the rules of the game.
At the end of the day, big business is big business - it is there to make money, not friends. However, when I see companies behaving as poorly as this, I do tend to find it repugnant. I was an early adopter of the iPhone, now I am happily talking on my Samsung Galaxy S II.
Running around for prior art and latching on to singe points of data. It got old months ago and has really killed any sort of actual discussion about the lawsuits.
So did all the defending of Apple.
Smaller, thinner, neater are logical progressive steps in refining a design that is basically rectangular and has buttons. Apple might be inside the law when it says it "owns" this design for a tablet, but at the same time, this court case may well be the one that settles it once and for all.
To me, this case is the same as if IBM in its early days would have gone after anyone (including Apple) selling some sort of computational device consisting of a box to house everything in, some sort of rectangual screen and an input device consisting of letters and numbers - and tried to maintain a no competition policy using the courts to back its business plan.
Having said this, I don't mind Apple products, some are quite nice (though I am not a fan of bloaty iTunes at all), but trying to stop anyone making a neat black tablet with rounded corners? Give me a break already...
Slashdot Mirror
One of the first IT jobs I ever had was working for an IT manager ... He couldn't solve a computer problem to save his life. That didn't matter, because he just hired competent underlings to do that work.
And that is the EXACT purpose of a manager. One of my recent managers was very similar to this guy - and probably the best manager I have ever worked for. He didn't know didly squat about the technologies we use, couldn't write a SQL statement to select 1 from dual, but he freely admitted to it on day one. He went to all the senior management meetings as prepared as he could be. If he didn't have an answer, he asked us after the meeting and then followed up with our recommendations. The senior management team loved his work because they were getting real answers and our team worked very efficiently. We enjoyed working within his team because he was always on top of things, had a well organized plan for our work - but most of all because he interjected himself between any business user and us when they came bearing work or requests.
Our teams profile rose greatly because we were able to provide a LOT more work to the rest of them due to this single manager. Sadly for us though, he has moved on to bigger and better things (though good for him) and our team is now being led by three managers who combined are no-where near as good as him. Shame really.
Sounds like a perfect one off opportunity for Mexico to take advantage and make some wonderful tourist dollars off an event they are not going to have again. I wouldn't have ever thought of using this event as a way to get tourists into a country, but hey, with all the TV shows about it constantly being shown, I guess it was only a matter of time before ads started screening during them saying "Hey, come to this place for when the nworld ends!".
Smart marketing if you ask me.
Because they might have an idea that uses a domain called RightHaven? Perhaps a RPG game, perhaps a software application for big business. Who cares - as long as the company is getting gutted to pay for the money it has to cover.
Having said that, I am personally much more interested in finding out whether once the IP within that shell of a shell company runs out and the money is still missing, whether Big Media will be covering the shortfall as they were clearly setting the operation up as a source of income. Surely they will be held liable for the shortfall? Can I get this as a late Christmas present from the US justice system?
The interesting thing to me is that on a photo there would be obvious "points of interest". If you had a picture of a few friends, you would likely use their faces as touch points. If you had a picture of a hillside with some houses, those would likely be the points that get touched. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of this rather novel password concept, but I think that in terms of security (at least for the most part) that any photo would have obvious points that narrow down the possibilities.
While not quite using paint or parking lots, the Germans embraced Solar power ten years ago and have certainly not looked back.
I am pretty sure that for now, they are getting 1% with what they have, but are expecting a much better result with more development. Meaning that it will outperform copper oxide further down the track.
Has anyone with the ISTR ever hear of... The Streisand Effect?
They have now.
Why target torrent and P2P sites, and completely disregard sites like this which sell illegal content downloaded straight over HTTP?
Because more people will go and try to find the free ones. If a free site has a hundred users and the paying one has two users, even though the paying one is technically doing "more illegal stuff" these lists will target the highest number of users first.
This isn't about stopping anyone breaking any laws or the like - this is about trying to stop access to content that Big Media is trying to sell.
I love how these two sites made it into the list. They are claimed to be selling "circumvention devices and components used to circumvent technological protection measures on consoles". If they are openly selling these things, I am assuming it is legal in Canada to do so - showing a lovely attitude of "If we call it illegal, it is illegal everywhere in the entire world!" from American "rightholders".
Also, that must have been from the Rightholder Group Dept of Redundancy Right Holder Group.
- /.er's still whinging about Freedoms.
- Smart Australians order games from overseas regardless (thank you parallel importing).
So on one hand you say that /.er's will be whining about Freedoms, but at the same time you say that the people who break a law (being importing of in this case illegal goods - which is what a US/UK copy would be) by ordering it in another country and circumnavigating this law are smart?
So smart and dumb Australians both disagree with the censorship here, the stupid ones try to bring attention to the matter and perhaps get the censorship issues with games resolved by politicians - but the smart ones import goods outside the law?
You had me for a few points, but then you lost me.
There is a great video on the Hubble site that you can view that goes into exactly what goes into a hubble picture and explains the whole concept of colors and the like in it.
I'm not sure how having the drone land in Iraq is supposed to benefit the Iranians...
If you have a bazzillion of these things flying around in Iraq, and probably very few whizzing around Iran, it seems a better training ground.
So, the Iranians admit to spoofing GPS positions and this *isn't* used as an excuse to say 'the Iranians tricked it into crossing the border'? Color me impressed.
When Coke originally changed the recipe and then had to do a LOT of backpedalling to restore the original flavour (and get the sales back), the CEO made a wonderful comment on the whole thing. People were accusing Coca Cola of doing this on purpose to drive sales. Keough answered this speculation by saying "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart".
I think this can very much also apply to this situation. The US government wasn't dumb enough to openly admit to spying and the like, but they weren't smart enough to concoct your excuse before the cat was out of the bag.
Nope, just makign clouds that are already there precipitate. They are stealing our water!
Actually, there are a number of countries that are actually saying exactly that - "You are stealing our rain and it isn't a joke.
An interesting thing though, is that the Chinese mainly use Silver Iodide Rockets to seed the clouds. Silver Iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and a toxic pollutant by the US. Exposure can result in the following:
Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache, irritation of the mucous membranes, weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression. Chronic inhalation, ingestion or skin contact with silver compounds may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes.
Will be interesting to see what happens during the next ten to fifteen years after this has been in place for long enough to really get into the soil, the food chain and the poor saps who this rain falls on.
*crash*
Don't be like that... This is much more likely...
You will be arriving at the Moon Base in 3 hours forty five minutes... .. . .. . . .
You will be arriving at the Moon Base in two minutes...
You will be arriving at the Moon Base in six days and twenty three hours...
You will be arriving at the Moon Base in calculating...
You will be.... .
What concerns me most is that there are enough of these rulings being made at the moment to suggest that all the large technology houses are simply stealing each other's technology on the basis of saying 'prove that I stole it'.
The other logical reason for this that you may not have considered is simply that the patents that are being awarded/approved are merely logical next steps in evolution of the technology. I think that is the main reason of why so many of us /.'ers get cranky with the patent system. So many patents are awarded (and then used to sue others) that are merely logical extensions of a current idea/technology that they should NEVER be patentable.
A good example is this patent awarded to Apple. When you have a touchscreen that you can input data with a finger, surely the idea to have the screen scroll by moving your finger along the screen and zoom in and out by moving two fingers closer or further apart is obvious. It is an INPUT device. To have those sort of simple gestures is the logical, blatantly obvious, anyone can think of it idea possible.
I wouldn't agree that novel punishments are needed by judges - I would say that less* patents like this should be granted.
* By less, I mean none.
King Solomon, is that you?!?
I think Soloman would have suggested they cut the patent in half and give one half to Apple and one half to Samsung.
Actually, in this case, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Cutting up all the patents...
I think I would prefer to see these companies slug it out akin to the ancient gauls:
Another very important aspect of Celtic ritual warfare at this time was single combat. To settle a dispute and measure one's prowess, it was customary to challenge an individual warrior from the other army to ritual single combat to the death while cheered on by the opposing hosts. Such fights were common before pitched battle, and for ritual purposes tended to occur at river fords. For examples of this behavior, one can read the epic literature of Ireland, such as the Ulster Cycle and Fenian Cycle, as well as accounts of Gaelic wars such as the "Wars of the Gael with the Foreigners" and Geoffrey Keating's "History of Ireland.
Ritual Combat would later manifest itself in the duel, as seen in the Scottish Martial Arts of the 18th century. The victor was determined by who made the first-cut. However, this was not always observed, and at times the duel would continue to the death.
"You there! Lawyer with the brown briefcase, I pick YOU for combat. Prepare yourself!"
Indeed, the first thing I wondered was if they have a method to seek damages or if it falls under some law that gives the government immunity against lawsuits where they plain get it wrong - like here.
I'm offended people like him come to power.
But that is the exact sort of character that democratic systems allow into power. The world wide, elections are won by those who are charasmatic, say the right things on camera and during conferences - then once they are in office, all of their "true" goals come to light as they try to keep themselves in power. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but have a look at this democratic election in 1932 and have a look at how people were misguided into who and what they voted for.
They wrote the laws, gave themselves an exemption, and have better access to law enforcement and legal advice than you or I.
While I agree that they have better access to legal advice, if you really did want to stick it to the man, your country still has courts that may stick to the letter of the law, but juries generally vote with common sense and a sense of justice. I would be very very surprised if the found someone guilty of robocalling the same candidate that robocalled them. If you filed for costs right at the start, you would likely get off free minus your time in court. The deck might be stacked in their favour, but a jury would likely even that out quick smart. Remember, that jury is probably getting the same annoying robocalls from the same politician.
If you really wanted to stick it to the man, make sure that it was taken to court and you won. Court rulings have a beautiful way of sticking around.
You need to have your mouth washed out with Sopa...
To your example, Apple, in your Ford Scenario, would not be out there suing every manufacturer of a vehicle that relied on a gas engine and had four wheels. They would, though, take the manufacturer of a vehicle that, from every angle viewed, would pass for a Mustang to a casual observer.
This comparison of five tablets (Samsung Galaxy, and Galaxy 2, the Xoom, Playbook and iPad2) really shows in my opinion that there are certain things that every tablet will have:
1) Minimal design - something neat, something clean where the touch screen is the focal point.
2) Some sort of border around the screen - which is due to engineering constraints.
3) Will probably have rounded corners. (My monitor has rounded corners, so does my laptop, so did the ruler that I had in primary school.
To say that the Galaxy Tab 2 from every angle viewed, would pass for a [iPad2] to a casual observer is a stretch. To a casual observer any of those devices could be mistaken for any other. To a casual observer, a HP laptop could be mistaken as a Dell and vice-versa.
I'd say the case design should be copyrighted or trademarked, but we all know how most slash dotters feel about copyrights.. :)
You can't trademark something that in itself is so broad - that's the whole point of most of the people that you seem to think are attacking Apple here. No company should be allowed to make a tablet (and have a design trademarked) that says "Screen, small border, rounded corners, one button" and stop anyone else making a tablet that had a screen, small border, rounded corners and a single button. Don't paint with such a broad brush. Would I support Apple if Samsung was putting an Apple logo on their tablet? Absolutely. They aren't. Apple generally uses a minimalist approach to presenting their products visually. That's fine, a lot of people like a clean, simple, minimalist approach. However, they cannot stop others using a minimalist approach.
Lastly, when Apple pulls this sort of shit it really makes it hard for someone like me to try to be understanding towards them in this case.
If you're referring to the IBM PC, Apple was there first.
So just because you are the first in a field, you agree that no-one else can make anything in that field?
Just to /. this up a bit, how come there are so many brands of cars out there? Would you support Ford if they took anyone making a "engine powered vehicle, with room for two or more persons moving under it's own volition and comprising of four or more wheels, a steering device, optional room for belongings (referred to henceforth as a boot or trunk) and with interior seats for the persons travelling" to court claiming that they had patents for it?
Patents are supposed to be there to protect the inventor of a new idea, to allow them to market and make money off their new invention. Making an existing idea/product neater, giving it a pleasing case/housing and rounded corners should not be a patentable market distinction.
I am not totally blaming Apple for this however (though I do think this whole saga just reeks of nerd rage with a dash of angry Cartman tantrum voice thrown in). Apple seems to be playing inside the sandpit that the patent system has created - though it certainly appears that it is trying to push the limits of the sandpit as far as it can get away with. It isn't playing nice, but it (depending on the outcome of this case) may be playing within the rules of the game.
At the end of the day, big business is big business - it is there to make money, not friends. However, when I see companies behaving as poorly as this, I do tend to find it repugnant. I was an early adopter of the iPhone, now I am happily talking on my Samsung Galaxy S II.
Running around for prior art and latching on to singe points of data. It got old months ago and has really killed any sort of actual discussion about the lawsuits.
So did all the defending of Apple.
Smaller, thinner, neater are logical progressive steps in refining a design that is basically rectangular and has buttons. Apple might be inside the law when it says it "owns" this design for a tablet, but at the same time, this court case may well be the one that settles it once and for all.
To me, this case is the same as if IBM in its early days would have gone after anyone (including Apple) selling some sort of computational device consisting of a box to house everything in, some sort of rectangual screen and an input device consisting of letters and numbers - and tried to maintain a no competition policy using the courts to back its business plan.
Having said this, I don't mind Apple products, some are quite nice (though I am not a fan of bloaty iTunes at all), but trying to stop anyone making a neat black tablet with rounded corners? Give me a break already...