"You cannot ban the export of software; it's simply not possible." Yes you can and is done........ a lot.......... the department of defense has a boat load of software that it does not and will not export for any reason.
"Software is basically applied mathematics: if the principles are know, anyone can implement them." Easy solution. Don't make the principles publicly known. Again their are a myriad of instances where this has been done before.
The multiverse as I understand it (hey I am not an astrophysicist) is based off of extra dimensions. My half cocked theory is that these extra big-bangs are within but not limited to our current set of dimensions
Picture a set of atoms within a big old bowling ball, the gravitational pull on atoms near the middle would be similar to this hypothesized gravitation pull, pulling apart our universe.
Given this theory we could test it by seeing if we can observe differences in the Doppler shift depending on stars' relative positions.. Different positions in the
observable universe should receive different gravitational affects given this hypothesized "macro universe"
The difference is that the "dumb" in this case are willfully this way. When people say this, they are rarely implying that the mentally handicapped should be taken advantage of. They are referring to people who should be capable but have spent their entire life sheltering themselves unwilling to gain intelligence/exposure to new ideas.
That being said go take your SJW shit elsewhere, no one respects your retarded virtue signaling. Unless you happen to actually be retarded, then carry on (See that play on words there).
While somewhere above someone posted that this may be a rehash of an old patent, If so the differentiation between an old patent and this one may need review under that pretext. Your implication that the idea of replicating a specific animistic behavior in a computer is fundamentally not patent worthy is just total garbage. The idea of making two computers talk to each-other was innovative as all hell, the idea of making a computer be able to see is innovative as all hell. The idea of making computers process natural language or reproduce themselves etc etc etc were all great ideas and foundational ideas that inspired whole industries. Your dismissal of this one for "reasons" is childish.
I am not informed enough on the specific aspects of this patent to judge the obviousness of it, nor do I want to be. But I would agree that Qualcomm should have to defend itself against that accusation in court.
But....... I will disagree with your blanket argument that "but on a computer" patents are inherently faulty. Applying tried and true ideas to a new problem is a valuable innovation. It can both create true value and be non-obvious. Perhaps a higher hurdle is needed but a blanket dismissal of that type would be uncalled for.
Your "D" is an option for those who I would say do no belong in business. Yes Apple is trying to do that. They are one of the singularly most morally bankrupt organizations we have now-n-days
If you can't design around an idea, then they made a GOOD patent. Qualcomm actually produced something of intellectual value. Good on them. So either A) Pay the man, B) Produce something that's a shoddy knockoff, or C) Invent your own *** **** stuff. If you don't want do to either of those three, you don't belong in business.
Side note. I acknowledge the abuse of the patent system for obviously/overly broad patents in general. While this case in particular does not seem to fit that issue. It is a fundamental patent needed by modern communications equipment, that however, does not mean it is obvious, it means it is VALUABLE.
While all the material we see in our universe is due to one big bang, my theory is that the larger universe of truly far away objects is the result of a collection of as many big bangs as there are stars. These big bangs are far enough away that they are unobservable (with current tech) and distributed in such a way that our observable material is pulled apart by them.
This has the benefit of explaining why our universe is accelerating outwards, and gets away with the fools assumption that the big bang is the one thing in the universe that is unique (hit anything that happens can happen over and over again. Additionally we have no need for some fancy jumping though hoops to explain why we cant see some dark matter that would have to comprise the vast majority of our IMMIDATE surroundings (on a astrophysics scale)
There it is, give me my Nobel prize. That darn Hawking stole my other one for his obvious theory that black holes decay (nothing lives forever)
" Sending a stupid person to college doesn't make them any more useful" That is a bit of an assumption
" And if the government stopped backing education loans, those loans would only become available to smart people " That is also a big assumption.
Your points also belie and a series of even more critical, unspoken, and at best debatable assumptions.
You imply private loan companies would efficiently (assumption) target those that can pay back the loans(assumption) and that the nimbleness of smaller private enterprises would be more efficient than the economics of scale enjoyed by a government (very very big assumption)
That all comes out a bit more harsh than I would like in this case, but so many libertarian/conservative ideas depend on an idealist faith in the free market that even economists completely disagree with.
As a great example here, A near infinite number of professional economic papers and studies have discussed the idea and statistically validated concept that loan originators intentionally target those who CANT pay back loans (predatory lending), often because they are a very lucrative source of late fees etc. This comes from market protection mechanism absorbing downside risk that we have deemed necessary to insure the safe functioning of an economy (privatized gains and public losses) and sheer greed and willingness to abuse the uninformed/easily manipulated (assumption discussed in academic studies).
Additionally due to the fact that many of the positive impacts of an educated workforce are positive externalities (assumption discussed elsewhere) a private enterprise based system would dramatically under invest in the sector.
"Clearly, the current method of funding higher education represents a bad deal for the taxpayer. " Governments of all kinds receive a MASSIVE ROI on education. By having you know, an educated workforce the government expands its tax base probably an order of magnitude over what it would have otherwise, dramatically increasing its revenues. The quote represents nothing but a short sighted conservative hyperbole. It amounts to "OMG I CANT IMAGINE ANY BENEFIT OTHER THAN A DIRECT INSTANTATIOUS PROFIT, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT DELAYED GRATIFICATION IS"
No serious tech company would move a HQ to "Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, or Miami". They would be laughed at. Top tier talent would never relocate there. Those areas are for cheeping out and maybe getting second or more likely third tier talent.
The UK can make whatever law they want. The world doesn't need to and wont listen to them. The UK simply does not have the strength to enforce their laws on mega-cap multinationals. The EU collectively barely had enough to be a player. As an individual the UK doesn't have a chance.
Very simple. All of those things are more important to him than the British government. Your use of the word "major" is very liberal. A distant 5th largest economy in the world. With specifically a very low likelihood of revenue growth for Facebook.
"Gas is less polluting than coal, but it's still not clean". Neither is solar, wind,nor hydro. Your statement is that "Gas is not magic" is noted and well understood.
Left parents just are screaming for censorship. Right parents lack even the most basic ability to judge the credibility of sources. Generic corporate overlord Google is a much better adult guide than either of those two groups.
American parents. I don't really see a better alternative. Google has its wrongs, but I do not really see too many, if any institutions which have any more moral perspectives than Google.
"Husband to the press: Umm.. I don't know what you're talking about, but we've never called the police." The "never" is the problem. Given the size of their business it is impossible for them to never have had someone break in.
Yes the story is specific, and Cooks response was general. "There's no truth to this." As per my first statement, that response does not mean, that Bloomberg got "A" detail wrong." There's no truth to this." His statement implies ALL of the details were wrong. He is not just saying that the particular components were not compromised. He is saying that none of Apples components were ever compromised. Which is the nonsensical part. His response is broader than the specific story.
Lets be real here. China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, and even the Grand ol USA are all trying to do the exact same thing. There is exactly ZERO chance that over the last decade Apple was not the target of one of the above listed nations trying to inject compromised hardware into their supply chain. That is not a riff on Apple, they are a major international company, they are a target. What is a nock on Apple is that Cook is a child like idiot who denies an obvious problem. Cook could have been believed if he said that Bloomberg had misidentified the vendor, or maybe timeline, or maybe response, or maybe the specific product. But to flat out deny that essentially any nation state had ever compromised their supply chain is pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously have done nothing more than the most superficial reading on the topic. There have loads protests against keystone in Canada as well.
"You cannot ban the export of software; it's simply not possible." Yes you can and is done ........ a lot.......... the department of defense has a boat load of software that it does not and will not export for any reason.
"Software is basically applied mathematics: if the principles are know, anyone can implement them." Easy solution. Don't make the principles publicly known. Again their are a myriad of instances where this has been done before.
Altruistic Answer: Yes
Nationalist answer: Why? That's THEIR problem.
The multiverse as I understand it (hey I am not an astrophysicist) is based off of extra dimensions. My half cocked theory is that these extra big-bangs are within but not limited to our current set of dimensions
Picture a set of atoms within a big old bowling ball, the gravitational pull on atoms near the middle would be similar to this hypothesized gravitation pull, pulling apart our universe.
Given this theory we could test it by seeing if we can observe differences in the Doppler shift depending on stars' relative positions.. Different positions in the observable universe should receive different gravitational affects given this hypothesized "macro universe"
The difference is that the "dumb" in this case are willfully this way. When people say this, they are rarely implying that the mentally handicapped should be taken advantage of. They are referring to people who should be capable but have spent their entire life sheltering themselves unwilling to gain intelligence/exposure to new ideas.
That being said go take your SJW shit elsewhere, no one respects your retarded virtue signaling. Unless you happen to actually be retarded, then carry on (See that play on words there).
While somewhere above someone posted that this may be a rehash of an old patent, If so the differentiation between an old patent and this one may need review under that pretext. Your implication that the idea of replicating a specific animistic behavior in a computer is fundamentally not patent worthy is just total garbage. The idea of making two computers talk to each-other was innovative as all hell, the idea of making a computer be able to see is innovative as all hell. The idea of making computers process natural language or reproduce themselves etc etc etc were all great ideas and foundational ideas that inspired whole industries. Your dismissal of this one for "reasons" is childish.
I am not informed enough on the specific aspects of this patent to judge the obviousness of it, nor do I want to be. But I would agree that Qualcomm should have to defend itself against that accusation in court.
But....... I will disagree with your blanket argument that "but on a computer" patents are inherently faulty. Applying tried and true ideas to a new problem is a valuable innovation. It can both create true value and be non-obvious. Perhaps a higher hurdle is needed but a blanket dismissal of that type would be uncalled for.
Your "D" is an option for those who I would say do no belong in business. Yes Apple is trying to do that. They are one of the singularly most morally bankrupt organizations we have now-n-days
Process patents are well defined and are a reasonable item to patent.
If you can't design around an idea, then they made a GOOD patent. Qualcomm actually produced something of intellectual value. Good on them. So either A) Pay the man, B) Produce something that's a shoddy knockoff, or C) Invent your own *** **** stuff. If you don't want do to either of those three, you don't belong in business.
Side note. I acknowledge the abuse of the patent system for obviously/overly broad patents in general. While this case in particular does not seem to fit that issue. It is a fundamental patent needed by modern communications equipment, that however, does not mean it is obvious, it means it is VALUABLE.
While all the material we see in our universe is due to one big bang, my theory is that the larger universe of truly far away objects is the result of a collection of as many big bangs as there are stars. These big bangs are far enough away that they are unobservable (with current tech) and distributed in such a way that our observable material is pulled apart by them.
This has the benefit of explaining why our universe is accelerating outwards, and gets away with the fools assumption that the big bang is the one thing in the universe that is unique (hit anything that happens can happen over and over again. Additionally we have no need for some fancy jumping though hoops to explain why we cant see some dark matter that would have to comprise the vast majority of our IMMIDATE surroundings (on a astrophysics scale)
There it is, give me my Nobel prize. That darn Hawking stole my other one for his obvious theory that black holes decay (nothing lives forever)
" Sending a stupid person to college doesn't make them any more useful" That is a bit of an assumption
" And if the government stopped backing education loans, those loans would only become available to smart people " That is also a big assumption.
Your points also belie and a series of even more critical, unspoken, and at best debatable assumptions.
You imply private loan companies would efficiently (assumption) target those that can pay back the loans(assumption) and that the nimbleness of smaller private enterprises would be more efficient than the economics of scale enjoyed by a government (very very big assumption)
That all comes out a bit more harsh than I would like in this case, but so many libertarian/conservative ideas depend on an idealist faith in the free market that even economists completely disagree with.
As a great example here, A near infinite number of professional economic papers and studies have discussed the idea and statistically validated concept that loan originators intentionally target those who CANT pay back loans (predatory lending), often because they are a very lucrative source of late fees etc. This comes from market protection mechanism absorbing downside risk that we have deemed necessary to insure the safe functioning of an economy (privatized gains and public losses) and sheer greed and willingness to abuse the uninformed/easily manipulated (assumption discussed in academic studies).
Additionally due to the fact that many of the positive impacts of an educated workforce are positive externalities (assumption discussed elsewhere) a private enterprise based system would dramatically under invest in the sector.
"Clearly, the current method of funding higher education represents a bad deal for the taxpayer. " Governments of all kinds receive a MASSIVE ROI on education. By having you know, an educated workforce the government expands its tax base probably an order of magnitude over what it would have otherwise, dramatically increasing its revenues. The quote represents nothing but a short sighted conservative hyperbole. It amounts to "OMG I CANT IMAGINE ANY BENEFIT OTHER THAN A DIRECT INSTANTATIOUS PROFIT, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT DELAYED GRATIFICATION IS"
So your point is.............???? That China engages in industrial espionage? Cause that's not exactly news.
No serious tech company would move a HQ to "Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, or Miami". They would be laughed at. Top tier talent would never relocate there. Those areas are for cheeping out and maybe getting second or more likely third tier talent.
The UK can make whatever law they want. The world doesn't need to and wont listen to them. The UK simply does not have the strength to enforce their laws on mega-cap multinationals. The EU collectively barely had enough to be a player. As an individual the UK doesn't have a chance.
Very simple. All of those things are more important to him than the British government. Your use of the word "major" is very liberal. A distant 5th largest economy in the world. With specifically a very low likelihood of revenue growth for Facebook.
Yes they are.
No need to RTFA
"Gas is less polluting than coal, but it's still not clean". Neither is solar, wind ,nor hydro. Your statement is that "Gas is not magic" is noted and well understood.
Left parents just are screaming for censorship. Right parents lack even the most basic ability to judge the credibility of sources. Generic corporate overlord Google is a much better adult guide than either of those two groups.
American parents. I don't really see a better alternative. Google has its wrongs, but I do not really see too many, if any institutions which have any more moral perspectives than Google.
"Husband to the press: Umm .. I don't know what you're talking about, but we've never called the police." The "never" is the problem. Given the size of their business it is impossible for them to never have had someone break in.
Yes the story is specific, and Cooks response was general. "There's no truth to this." As per my first statement, that response does not mean, that Bloomberg got "A" detail wrong." There's no truth to this." His statement implies ALL of the details were wrong. He is not just saying that the particular components were not compromised. He is saying that none of Apples components were ever compromised. Which is the nonsensical part. His response is broader than the specific story.
Lets be real here. China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, and even the Grand ol USA are all trying to do the exact same thing. There is exactly ZERO chance that over the last decade Apple was not the target of one of the above listed nations trying to inject compromised hardware into their supply chain. That is not a riff on Apple, they are a major international company, they are a target. What is a nock on Apple is that Cook is a child like idiot who denies an obvious problem. Cook could have been believed if he said that Bloomberg had misidentified the vendor, or maybe timeline, or maybe response, or maybe the specific product. But to flat out deny that essentially any nation state had ever compromised their supply chain is pathetic.